HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8871 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Keshawa Prasad Pandey, Krishna Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhijeet Mukherji, Akhilendra Kumar Yadav, G.A. Ajeet Kumar Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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. September 8, 2026 RA CRLA No. 8871 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad