Sunil Yadav Alias Sunil Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sunil Yadav Alias Sunil Kumar and 4 Others 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

Appeal admitted; notice to respondent no.2 through CJM concerned, returnable at an early date, steps within a week; matter listed on 23/4/2026 as fresh; till the next date of listing, no coercive process to be adopted against the appellants by the courts below.

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Court below is vitiated by non-compliance with the proviso to section 223(1) BNSS, which provides that no cognizance of an offense shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.

Ratio / Principle

Appeal admitted; notice to respondent no.2 to be served through CJM concerned, returnable at an early date, steps within a week, list on 23/4/2026 as fresh; and till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2026 filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989 by Sunil Yadav Alias Sunil Kumar and 4 others against the cognizance and summoning order dated 17.05.2025 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge, SC/ST Act)-2, Unnao in Complaint Case No. 205/2024 (Durga Prasad Pasi v. Ram Sumer & Ors.), wherein an application under section 156(3) CrPC was treated as a complaint, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded under section 202 CrPC, and the appellants were summoned. Grievance: the proviso to section 223(1) BNSS (no cognizance without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard) was not complied with, and non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellants. The Court admitted the appeal, issued notice to respondent no.2 through the CJM concerned (steps within a week), listed the matter for 23/4/2026 as fresh, and directed that till the next date of listing no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below. Admission-stage order; merits left open.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 880 of 2026

Sunil Yadav Alias Sunil Kumar And 4 Others

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sudhir Kumar Rai, Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

The instant criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-1989, is directed against the Cognizance and summoning order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special Judge, SC/ST Act)-2, Unnao (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Court below"), against the Appellants in Complaint Case No. 205/2024 (Durga Prasad Pasi v. Ram Sumer & Ors.).

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that initially an application has been filed under section 156(3) CrPC against the appellants and some unknown persons which has been treated as a complaint by the learned trial court. After recording the statement of the complainant and witnesses under section 202 CrPC, the learned court below has summoned the appellants for the aforesaid charges.

He next submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned court below has not complied with the proviso of section 223(1) of the BNSS, which provides that no cognizance of an offense shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard. In the present case, in fact, no such opportunity has been given to the appellants at the stage of taking cognizance against them.

CRLA No. 880 of 2026

2

Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that non-bailable warrant has been issued against the appellants by the learned trial court.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

Issue notice to respondent no.2 which shall be served through CJM concerned, returnable at an early date.

Steps within a week.

List on 23/4/2026 as fresh.

Till the next date of listing, no coercive process shall be adopted against the appellants by the courts below.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

April 1, 2026 dk/

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