HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8006 of 2026 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J. 1. As per the office report dated 21.9.2026, notice has been served upon opposite party no.2 personally. 2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned AGA for the State. 4. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to set aside the charge-sheet dated 28.2.2026 as well as impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 29.4.2026 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Jhansi in Session Case No.352 of 2026 (State vs. Vikas Dwivedi @ Kallu and others), arising out of Case Crime No.398 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Jhansi. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations under the SC/ST Act are not made out against all the accused persons, as the FIR specifically attributes the use of casteist slurs only to accused persons Kallu Tiwari and Shashank Upadhyay, while no such allegation is made against the present appellant. It is further contended that the subsequent statement of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S. constitutes an improvement over the FIR by attributing caste-based abuse to all the accused persons. It is also argued that the medical examination having Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rajeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ankit @ Akhilesh Srivastav .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) been conducted prior to the registration of the FIR creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case, which renders the impugned order unsustainable. 6. Learned AGA, opposing the appeal, submits that the FIR specifically names all the appellants and attributes to them the acts of assault and abuse, resulting in injuries to the victim. It is further contended that the victim, in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., has clearly reiterated the role of all the accused persons, including the allegation that they used casteist slurs with the intention of humiliating him on account of his belonging to SC/ST category. The medical report corroborates the occurrence by disclosing multiple injuries, and the contention regarding the preparation of the injury report prior to registration of the FIR is a matter of evidence to be examined during trial. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. 7. In the FIR, accused-appellants Kallu Tiwari, Shashank Upadhyay and Akhilesh Srivas, along with one unknown person, have been named. The allegations in the FIR are that all the accused persons abused the victim by using derogatory language and assaulted him, causing injuries. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, so far as the allegation of caste-based abuse is concerned, the same is specifically attributed only to accused-appellants Kallu Tiwari and Shashank Upadhyay in the FIR. However, during the course of investigation, the statement of the victim was recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., wherein he specifically disclosed the role of each accused in causing injuries as well as in using casteist slurs against him. The victim further clarified that the real name of accused-appellant as Ankit alias Akhilesh Srivastava, which fact was not known at the time of lodging of the FIR. In his statement, the victim categorically stated that all the accused persons had used casteist slurs with the intention of insulting and humiliating him on the ground that he belongs to SC/ST category. 8. The medical report available on record discloses six injuries in the nature of abrasions and contusions. It is true that the medical examination was conducted on 18.12.2025, the very same day on which the incident allegedly occurred, and before the registration of the FIR. The effect of CRLA No. 8006 of 2026 2 preparation of the medical report prior to registration of the FIR is a matter to be considered by the trial court during the course of trial. At the stage of taking cognizance, the trial court is not required to meticulously examine or appreciate the evidence as if conducting a trial. The only question to be considered at this stage is whether the material available on record discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons. 9. 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. 10. The instant appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. 11. 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. 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 as well as this Court 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. 14. 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 23, 2026 RA CRLA No. 8006 of 2026 3 (Santosh Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad