Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86749 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8743 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shital Singh,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapoor Chandra Bhartiya,Rishikesh Kumar Maurya,Surendra Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed assailing the impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 18.11.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Room No.15, Allahabad in Session Trial No.2369 of 2021 (State vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and others) and remand back this matter to the court below for re-consideration to meet the ends of justice. 3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application under Section 528 BNSS, submitting that a revision is the appropriate remedy against the rejection of the discharge application. However, no judicial precedent was cited in support of this contention. 4. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the rejection of the discharge application is not a final order, and since the court concerned failed to apply its mind and did not take into consideration the grounds taken in the discharge application, thereby not applying its mind, therefore, the present application U/s 528 BNSS is maintainable." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case by the opposite party no.2 in order to save his skin as the applicant along with one Suresh Kumar Srivastava inspected the Loco Storage and found a shortage of Lube Oil, therefore, when the applicant went to check ledger book for the second time, it has been alleged that the caste indicative words were used and the applicant has assaulted the opposite party no.2. A specific ground has been taken in the discharge application with respect to the offence under SC/ST Act as even in case it is presumed that any such conduct was done by the applicant, it was not in a public view, therefore, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out. Hence, the impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 18.11.2024 may be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 7. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and he has no objection if the impugned orders are set aside. 8. The essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the Act) are intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. In Gorige Pentaiah Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Others; (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531, the Apex Court has propounded at para 6 that a public view is the view, which is of public access. Once it is inside any house, it will not be a public view and in the case of lack of above basic ingredient, the offence of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not made out. 9. This Court finds that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to interfere in the matter as the same is against the settled position of law as relied upon the learned counsel for the applicant. Hence the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.12.2024 and 18.11.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court concerned to decide the discharge application of the applicant afresh by speaking and reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, which shall be placed by the applicant before the court concerned within two weeks from today. 10. For the period of two months from today or till disposal of such application for discharge, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present application is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad