Disposed¶19

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2026CRLA/1030/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), CRLA No. 1030 of 2026, decided 15.04.2026, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. — Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan v. State of U.P.; S. 14A(1) SC/ST Act appeal against ST No. 1749/2025 and summoning order dt. 27.11.2025; Case Crime 175/2025, P.S. Gurubuxganj, Raebareli; Ss. 352, 351(2) BNS 2023; S. 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act; chargesheet dt. 19.07.2025; bail consideration per Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; one-month bar on coercive process; appeal disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal finally disposed of: appellant to appear before the court below within one month and seek bail, to be heard and disposed of in terms of the Satender Kumar Antil guidelines; interim protection of one month from coercive process. ¶19

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the summoning order dated 27.11.2025 and the criminal proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 1749 of 2025 under Section 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act were unsustainable — counsel alleging false implication, a mechanically passed summoning order, and that no caste-related remark made in public view is established absent independent witnesses in the FIR. +1 more

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The appeal is finally disposed of; the appellant is directed to appear before the court below within a month from today and to move an application for bail.

¶19

Key takeaways

The bail application shall be heard and disposed of in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra).ratio¶19
For a period of one month, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant by the court below.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under S. 14A(1), SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan against the entire criminal proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 1749 of 2025 — arising from Case Crime No. 175 of 2025, P.S. Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli, under Ss. 352 and 351(2) BNS 2023 and S. 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act, 1989 — alongwith the summoning order dated 27.11.2025 and chargesheet dated 19.07.2025. Counsel alleged false implication, that no charge under S. 3(1)(Da)(Dha) SC/ST Act was made out (no independent witness in FIR, hence no caste remark in public view), and a mechanical summoning order, but confined the prayer to a direction that the court below consider bail in terms of the guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, noting the offences carry a maximum of seven years' imprisonment and the appellant was not arrested during investigation. The learned AGA had no objection; the Court (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) finally disposed of the appeal, directing appearance before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli within a month, bail application to be heard and disposed of per the said guidelines, with one month's protection from coercive process.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1030 of 2026

¶3

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another	Lko.	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	:	Uma Shanker
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:	G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 27

¶8

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶9

The instant criminal appeal under section-14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the entire criminal proceeding of Special Sessions Trial no. 1749 of 2025 "State versus Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan" pending in the court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli arising out of Case Crime no. 175 of 2025, under Sections-352, 351(2) of BNS 2023 and Section-3(1)(da)(dha) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Police StationGurubuxganj, District-Raebareli alongwith summoning order dated 27.11.2025 and chargesheet dated 19.07.2025.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and produce the record.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No charge under Section 3(1) (Da) (Dha) of SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant.

¶12

According to the prosecution version, the appellant has installed an electric line from the transformer forcefully. It is alleged that the said transformer was installed on the tubewell of the informant.

¶13

He has submitted that learned court below has passed a summoning order on the basis of the charge sheet in a mechanical manner, without going

¶14

CRLA No. 1030 of 2026

¶15

¶16

through the evidence collected during the investigation. There is no mention of any independent witness in the FIR. Therefore, it cannot be held that any caste-related remark was made by the appellant in public view.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offences are punishable with a maximum term of 7 years of imprisonment and the appellant is not arrested during investigation and now the court below has taken cognizance by the impugned order, therefore, the prayer is confined to the extent that necessary direction may kindly be issued to the court below to consider the bail application of the appellant in terms of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2022) 10 SCC 51

¶18

Learned AGA has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶19

In view of above prayer, the appeal is finally disposed off . The appellant is directed to appear before the court below within a month from today and move an application for bail which shall be heard and disposed of in terms of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme in Satender Kumar Antil (Supra).

¶20

For a period of one month from today, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellant by the court below.

¶21

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶22

April 15, 2026 dk/

¶23

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

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pratap Singh @ Rajjan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Smt. Archana Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Zeeshan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others