Ankit Sahu and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

The Instant criminal appeal under section 14A(1) SC/ST Act, 1989 has been preferred against summoning order dated 27.01.2026 passed under sections 190, 78, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) BNS (Comparative Sections 149, 354D, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC) and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the appellant no.1 and under Sections 190, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS (comparative Sections 149, 452, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC) and section 3(2)(va) and section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act against the appellant nο.-2 to 8 in Complaint Case no. 83/2024 (UPUN010091882024) Shivbaran vs Ankit Sahu & others passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Court no. 13/Special Judge POCSO Act, Unnao.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order had been passed mechanically placing bald reliance on the complainant's version in respect of the incident dated 23-09-2024. The complainant initially moved an application under section 173(4) BNSS dated 15-102024, before the learned Special Judge ( SC/ST) Act on which an order was passed on 3-1-2025, directing the S.H.O.concerned to register and investigate the matter. However, before any FIR could be registered in

¶14

CRLA No. 1000 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

compliance of the order dated 3-1-2025, against the appellants, a complainant lodged an FIR on 8-1-2025 in Case Crime No. 0006 of 2025, under sections 74, 115(2), 352(3) BNS and 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act. The said FIR was investigated by the police and a charge sheet was filed covering the incident dated 23-9-2024, regarding which an order was passed by the court below on an application under section 173(4) BNS as well as the incident dated 6-1-2025, regarding which an FIR was lodged. In the said charge sheet, both the incidents, dated 23-9-2024 and 6-1-2025 are covered and the charge sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 115(2), 352, 191(2), 333, 126(2), 351(3), 76 BNS, Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act and section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, the complainant filed a complaint against the appellants on 21-12-2024 in regard to the incident dated 23-9-2024, in which no mention was made regarding the lodging of the previous FIR and the order passed on the application under section 173(4) BNS with regard to the incident dated 23-9-2024 in which the learned trial court summoned the appellants by the impugned order dated 27-1-2026 in regard to same incident dated 239-2024 under sections 190, 78, 333, 115(2), 117(2), 352, 351 (2) BNS, and section 7/ 8 of the POCSO Act as well as sections 3(2)(V) and 3(1) (X) SC/ST Act. However, the charge of stalking under section 78 BNS has only been invoked in regard to applicant Ankit Sahu.

¶17

Learned A.G.A. did not dispute the contention of the appellants that the facts and penal sections involved in the case, in both the cases a chargesheet as well as in the summoning order passed in the complaint case are substantially the same.

¶18

He further submits that no useful purpose will be served to keep the present criminal appeal pending against the summoning order passed in the complaint case and the appellants may approach the trial court, which may proceed in the matter in terms of section 233 BNSS which is statute in pari materia to Section 210 Cr.P.C..

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants are already enlarged on bail instituted on police reports and in case they are directed to seek bail in regard to summoning order passed in the complaint case, it would be detrimental to their interests and also contrary

¶20

CRLA No. 1000 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

to law.

¶23

In view of the above, the appellants are at liberty to move an application under section 233 BNS before the court below to consolidate both the cases in order to avoid multiplicity of the evidence and proceedings.

¶24

The learned trial court will not insist the appellants for surrendering and for filing of bail application, as fresh in complaint case, as they have already been released on bail in respect of said offence as stated by learned counsel for the appellants; in the case instituted by the police report in regard to the same incident and offence. At the most, the learned trial court may take bond for appearance from appellants in regard to any penal section which is covered in the summoning order, but does not find a place in the charge-sheet.

¶25

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶27

April 10, 2026 dk/

¶28

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Sahu and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Sahu and 7 Others v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Rathore vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home/Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Juvenile Delinquent X (Minor) Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Najimi Begum vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Raju Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rishiram vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Premjeet Kumar @ Mantu and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another