The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an FIR need not quote a casteist slur verbatim to sustain a case under the SC/ST Act. It said sharing a village can help presume caste awareness and dismissed the accused's appeal against summons.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an FIR need not quote a casteist slur verbatim to sustain a case under the SC/ST Act.
Allahabad,Oct 23, 2026 02:07 IST
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the absence of an exact casteist slur in an FIR does not, by itself, justify quashing a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court also observed that the fact that the accused and the victims belong to the same village can be considered to presume that the accused knew the victims’ caste, subject to Section 8 of the Act and the facts of the case.
Justice Santosh Rai dismissed an appeal filed by Nitesh Bind and others challenging a summons order passed by the Special Judge in Jaunpur on December 3, 2025. The case originated from an FIR registered at Machhlishahr police station in Jaunpur district.
The appellants argued that the FIR did not mention any specific caste-based slur and, therefore, failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence. They sought the cancellation of the summons order.
Opposing the appeal, the state counsel submitted that the FIR contained specific allegations of causing injuries and using insulting language. Statements recorded during the investigation described the individual roles of the accused, while the injury reports corroborated the allegations. The prosecution also pointed out that the accused and the injured persons belonged to the same village, suggesting that the accused knew their caste.
The court noted that Nitesh Bind, Pintu and Ranjeet had been named in the FIR in connection with allegations of assaulting the victims and using insulting language. Statements recorded during the investigation attributed specific roles to Nitesh Bind and Ranjeet Bind, while the injury reports supported the allegations.
The court further observed that the FIR mentioned the accused as residents of Daudpur village in Machhlishahr, Jaunpur, and that the informant and the injured persons also belonged to the same village.
Considering these circumstances, the court said that the fact that the accused and the victims were residents of the same village could be taken into account under Section 8 of the SC/ST Act while drawing a presumption regarding the accused’s knowledge of the victims’ caste, subject to the applicability of the statutory provision and the facts of the case.
The High Court held that the specific allegations, statements of the injured persons and corroboration through injury reports justified the trial court’s decision to summon the accused. It found no illegality in the order and described it as a reasoned decision.
Dismissing the appeal for lack of merit, the court declined to interfere with the summons order.
- Ends
with inputs from Anand Raj