HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 602 of 2025 Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; learned A.G.A. for the State; and none is present for opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice. Record has been perused. 2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned summoning order dated 09.07.2024 as well as Non Bailable Warrant dated 07.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Mau in Session Trial No. 0007 of 2017 (State Versus Jainath and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0163 of 2017, under Sections 147, 323, 352 of 1.P.C. and 3(1)(R) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ranipur, District- Mau whereby the learned court below summoned the appellants for facing trial on the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party No. 2. 3. The principal submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the evidence relied upon is not of such strong and cogent nature as would justify exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh & Another vs. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 46; Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92; Manjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2021 LiveLaw (SC) 398; and Sartaj Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2021) 5 SCC 337. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that the trial court has carefully considered the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded in Court and found sufficient material to summon the appellants. He submits that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having considered rival submissions and perused the material on record, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded reasons with reference to the depositions of prosecution witnesses who have specifically implicated the appellants. It is settled law that the term "evidence" under Section 319 Cr.P.C. means such evidence as is adduced before the Court in the course of trial, and even the statement made in Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar Singh, Babhru Vahan Singh, Ramesh Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Tripathi Jai Prakash And 3 Others .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) examination-in-chief may be sufficient for invoking the said power, if it discloses strong prima facie case. 6. The judgments cited on behalf of the appellants do emphasize that power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when there is strong and cogent evidence. In the present case, the Court below has, after analyzing the evidence available on record, reached satisfaction that such material exists warranting summoning of the appellants. This Court does not find any perversity or manifest illegality in the impugned order. 7. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and law laid down by the Apex Court, I find no scope for interference in the impugned order passed by the trial court at this stage. However, it is provided that in case the appellants appear or surrender before the court concerned within period of three weeks from today and apply for bail, then their prayer for bail be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, the criminal appeal is finally disposed of. October 14, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 602 of 2025 2 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad