Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29089 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 44544 of 2024 Applicant :- Lavkush Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava,Ram Surat Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandrabhan,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A., who appears for the State and Sri Ajay Kumar Garg (AoR No.A/A 0160/12) holding brief of Sri Chandrabhan, learned counsel for O.P. No.2. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS has been preferred by the applicant for quashing Charge Sheet no. 174/2024, dated 19-09-2024, in pursuance of the summoning order dated 22-11-2024, in S.T. No. 256 of 2024 (State of U.P. Vs. Lavkush Kumar Yadav others) arising out of Case Crime No. 219 of 2024, Under Section 115(2), 352, 351(2), B.N.S. Section 3(2) (5A) S.C./S.T. Act, at Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC./S.T. Act Prayagraj as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 22.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an FIR stood lodged against the applicant by O.P. No.2 on 10.08.2024 being FIR No.0219 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), B.N.S. Section 3(2)(5A) S.C./S.T. Act, with the allegation that the son of O.P. No.2 as well as the son of the applicant were playing on 07.08.2024 at 05:00 in the evening and during the same, the son of the applicant fell down and seeing the same, the applicant became infuriated and proceeded to beat the son of O.P. No.2 and also hurled caste-based abused. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the enitre allegations so sought to be leveled are false and is a concocted story, as on 09.08.2024, regarding the said incident, a complaint was also lodged before the Station Incharge, Tharwai, Phoolpur, Prayagraj and further he being a practicing lawyer in Tehsil was also present before the Court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Prayagraj in one of the matters and pursuing the same. Thus, it is beyond comprehension that the applicant would have been engaged in such type of activities. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 submit that what is to be seen is the fact as to whether offences are made out or not and conglomeration of the allegations contained in the first information report, the ingredients of invocation of penal sections stands attracted. It is further submitted that the incident is of the evening at 05:00 p.m. and thus it cannot be presumed that the applicant was present in the Court beyond court hours. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the present case needs no interference particularly when, prima facie, there happens to be offences made out. Apart from the same, the ingredients of the invocation of the SC/ST Act also stands borne out when the allegation is regarding hurling of caste-based abuses in public view. The arguments so sought to be canvassed by the applicant that he was in the Court on 07.08.2024, and not present at the time of the incident and further on 09.08.2024, he had also filed a complaint, would be at best to the defence, which can always be taken when the trial commences, as the said stage has not arrived till date. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that a direction be issued for consideration of the bail. 7. Accordingly, no case for the interference is made out. The application is consigned to record while observing that in case appropriate proceeding in the form of bail application is preferred before the court below, then the same shall be decided with most expedition strictly in accordance with the law of the land keeping in view the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad