HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10463 of 2025 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14A(1) of S.C. & S.T. Act by the appellant to set aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, in Sessions Case No. 1245 of 2024, State Vs. Aryan Singh Yadav @ Toni and 3 Others, along with Charge-sheet No. 174 of 2023 dated 30.07.2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 140 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station Aliganj, District Etah. 3. Tersely, as per the FIR, the informant Saurabh Katheriya alleged that on 26.05.2023, he attended a community feast (bhandara) organized at S.S. Resort, Kayamganj Road, along with other persons. During the meal, accused appellant Aryan Yadav, allegedly used caste-based abusive language and threatened the informant. When the informant objected, Aryan Yadav allegedly dragged him outside and assaulted him. It is further alleged that other accused persons, namely Kallu, Pankaj Yadav and others, joined the assault, threw the informant to the ground, beat him with kicks and fists, and subjected him to caste-based abuses. Accused appelant Aryan Yadav allegedly placed a licensed pistol on the informant's chest and threatened to kill him if he reported the matter to the police. 4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 15.09.2023, passed by the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Radhey Shyam Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Aryan Singh Yadav Alias Toni .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) learned Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Etah, is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjunctures as such same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of political enmity and that the allegations made against him are not supported by reliable material. It is further submitted that the appellant has been implicated with an ulterior motive and that the material collected during investigation does not disclose the commission of the offences alleged against him. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has been specifically named in the First Information Report, wherein his role in causing injuries to the victim/informant and abusing him by using caste-related derogatory words has been clearly stated. It is further submitted that the statement of the injured recorded during investigation substantially corroborates the allegations contained in the First Information Report. Learned A.G.A. has also drawn attention to the injury report, according to which four injuries were found on the person of the injured, most of which were on vital parts of the body. It is thus submitted that the medical evidence prima facie lends corroboration to the version of the injured. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the alleged incident took place at a place within public view and, therefore, the ingredients relevant to the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie attracted. It is submitted that, at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused and that a detailed appreciation of the evidence or consideration of the defence on merits is not warranted at this stage. On these grounds, learned A.G.A. has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. In the First Information Report, the accused-appellant has been specifically named, and his role and involvement in causing injuries to the victim/informant and abusing him by using caste-related derogatory words have been clearly stated. During the course of investigation, the statement of the injured/victim was recorded by the Investigating Officer, wherein he CRLA No. 10463 of 2025 2 stated that on 26.05.2023, he had gone to S.S. Resort, Kayamganj Road, to attend the oath-taking ceremony of Smt. Sunita Gupta. Arrangements for food had been made at the said place, and he was having dinner along with others. At about 11:30 p.m., Aryan Yadav @ Toni, son of Shivpal Yadav, came there and abused him by using caste-related derogatory words and remarked, "Dhanukta, you have so much courage to eat food with us." After the injured had finished his meal and got up, Aryan Yadav caught hold of his collar and dragged him outside, where he again abused him by using caste- related derogatory words. The injuries sustained by the victim were caused by the accused-appellant, and the injury report is available on record. As per the First Information Report dated 01.06.2023, the incident occurred on 26.05.2023, whereas the injured was medically examined and his injury report was prepared on 27.05.2023. Four injuries were found on the person of the injured, most of which were sustained on vital parts of the body. The medical evidence, therefore, prima facie lends corroboration to the statement of the injured. The incident took place at a place within public view, which is a relevant consideration while examining the applicability of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated on account of political enmity. However, at this stage, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said allegation. The plea of false implication on account of political rivalry, therefore, by itself, does not warrant interference with the impugned order taking cognizance. At the stage of taking cognizance, the learned trial court is required to examine whether, on the basis of the material available on record, a prima facie case is made out against the accused. At this stage, a detailed appreciation of the evidence or a meticulous examination of the defence of the accused is not warranted. 8. Considering the statement of the injured, the averments contained in the FIR and the medical evidence, this Court finds that the learned trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the accused-appellant. 9. Consequently, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been granted bail. 11. In view of above submission, the appellant is directed to appear before CRLA No. 10463 of 2025 3 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. 12. 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 in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 & Siddharth Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676 regarding surrender and bail. 13. 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. September 29, 2026 Asha CRLA No. 10463 of 2025 4 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad