AJEET KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8871 of 2026

Ajeet Kumar Singh
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : Keshawa Prasad Pandey, Krishna
                                 Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Abhijeet Mukherji, Akhilendra Kumar
                                 Yadav, G.A.

Court No. - 93
                     HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, Ms. Deepti Dwivedi,
holding brief of Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a
prayer to set aside the charge-sheet no.214 of 2025 dated 15.8.2025 as
well as the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 10.2.2026
passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Prayagraj in Special Session
Trial No.164 of 2026 (State vs. Ajeet Kumar Singh), arising out of Case
Crime No.242 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Phoolpur, District-
 Prayagraj.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been
falsely implicated due to ulterior motives and that no offence under the
SC/ST Act is made out against him. It is submitted that the allegations are
exaggerated and do not inspire confidence, as no independent witness has
supported the prosecution version in the manner alleged. It is further
argued that the medical report discloses only a complaint of pain without
any grievous injury, and the departmental proceedings initiated against
the appellant are independent in nature and cannot be treated as evidence
of criminal culpability. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order
be set aside.
                                                         CRLA No. 8871 of 2026
                                2


4. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2, as well as learned AGA, has
opposed the appeal and submits that the accused-appellant is specifically
named in the FIR and the allegations against him are duly corroborated by
the statement of the victim and the independent witnesses. It is further
submitted that a specific derogatory casteist expression has been
attributed to the appellant, and when the victim objected to the same, the
appellant assaulted him and caught him by the neck. The presence of Dr.
Vivek Kumar and other employees at the spot and their intervention in the
altercation also lend support to the prosecution version. It is further
pointed out that departmental proceedings were initiated against the
appellant for the alleged misconduct. Thus, sufficient prima facie material
exists against the appellant and no ground for interference is made out.
The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. The accused-appellant is specifically named in the FIR. The allegations
against him are that he caused injury to the victim and humiliated him by
using casteist slur, the specific derogatory expression being clearly
mentioned in the FIR. During investigation, the victim reiterated in his
statement that the appellant had used derogatory words against his wife,
who is employed in the education department, and when the victim
objected, the appellant assaulted him. The victim further stated that Dr.
Vivek Kumar, his superior officer, and other employees were present at
the spot and intervened in the altercation. The statement of the
independent witness, Dr. Vivek Kumar, corroborates the prosecution
version by stating that the appellant grabbed the victim by the neck and
abused him. The same version has also been supported by witness Ram
Singh. Moreover, departmental proceedings were initiated against the
appellant for misconduct, and a notice dated 6.6.2025 issued by the
competent authority is available on record. The medical report also
records the complaint of pain suffered by the victim.

8. For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has rightly summoned the accused-appellant under the aforesaid
provisions. The impugned order is well reasoned and does not suffer from
any illegality or infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

9. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
                                                                                             CRLA No. 8871 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    10. The appellant is directed to appear before the court concerned and
                                    move bail application, within two weeks from today. It is also made clear
                                    that no time extension application shall be moved before this Court by the
                                    appellant.

                                    11. In case, the appellant moves bail application before the court
                                    concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the trial court
                                    expeditiously and preferably on the same day, in light of principles laid
                                    down by the Supreme Court as well as this Court regarding surrender and
                                    bail.

                                    12. In case, the appellant fails to appear before the court concerned within
                                    the stipulated period, the trial court will be at liberty to adopt appropriate
                                    coercive proceedings, in accordance with law, for securing the presence
                                    of the appellant.

                                    13. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to serve a copy of this order by
                                    FAX/e-mail to the court concerned through District & Sessions Judge
                                    concerned within 48 hours.




                                                                                                (Santosh Rai,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    RA




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad