IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 9 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10566 of 2025 DASHRATH Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rajesh Joshi - GA for the State.

ORDER This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 10.10.2025 in SCATR No.187/2025 by the Exclusive Special Court designated for SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 Ratlam whereby the application filed under section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 by the appellant- Dashrath who was apprehended on 08.07.2025 in connection with crime no.215/2025 registered at police station- Shivgarh, District Ratlam (M.P.) for committing the murder of one Gudibai in the intervening period of 06-07.07.2025, who belongs to scheduled community whereas appellant/accused does not belongs to SC/ ST community, regarding which charges under sections 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 and section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 has been framed has been dismissed.

2. The bail application of the appellant/accused has been rejected on the ground that offence is serious in nature and appellant/accused has one criminal antecedent as crime No.254/2022 registered at P.S.- Shivgarh, District-Ratlam (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 307, 323, 294, 506, 147 and 149 of the IPC and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3. Challenging the aforesaid order this criminal appeal has been preferred on the ground that conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time and statement of the witnesses does not discloses any case against the appellant/accused. Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is further argued that DNA finger printing report is in contradiction to the report of Regional State Forensic Laboratory Ratlam. Case is based upon circumstantial evidence and above report discontinue the chain of circumstances.

4. Heard.

5. Counsel for the State opposed the appeal.

6. Perused the record.

7. So far the delay in trial is concerned it does not find support from the proceeding of the trial court because five witnesses has been examined till 04.12.2025. Material collected during the investigation and the fact that appellant/accused have previous criminal antecedents does not find favour to release him on bail. Hence, this criminal appeal is rejected.

8. One thing may be noticed that report of Regional Forensic Laboratory (FSL) Ratlam dated 08.07.2025 reported the presence of sperm and semen on vaginal slide and vaginal swab and petticoat of the deceased.

Thereafter, the samples were forwarded for the DNA analysis to State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal (M.P.) and the report prepared by Scientific Officer submitted that Y Chromosome STR DNA could not be detected on the samples. The report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhopal (M.P.) is not in consonance with the report of the Regional State Forensic Laboratory (FSL) Ratlam. This anomaly could have been noticed by the prosecution itself and explanation should have been submitted before the trial court but no such exercise was undertaken. This court noticed this anomaly and vide order dated 01.12.2025 directed the State to clarify in this regard but there was no response.

9. This anomaly requires clarification because testing without applying proper DNA Kit may not be ruled out. In the case of Jagdish Prasad Dixit Vs. State of M.P. in MCRC No.37350/2024 order dated 17.09.2024 [Neutral Citation No. 2024: MPHC-JBP:47131] it was expected from the DGP to correct his house noticing some kits were unauthorizedly purchased. Accordingly, it would be proper to retesting the samples collected from the body of the deceased from another government laboratory situated outside the state and one of such reliable centre is Center for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) H