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

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5980 of 2025 RATAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanidhya Nema - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Jayesh Yadav appearing on behalf of Advocate General.

Shri Anil Kumar Dawale, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].

ORDER The appellant has preferred this (repeat) 2nd criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended by the Act of 2015) read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, being aggrieved by order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ujjain M.P. in SCATR No.306/2023.

2. Earlier, first appeal of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2024, with liberty to review the same after statement of the seizure witnesses of ornaments.

3. Appellant has been arrested on 24.09.2023 in connection with FIR/Crime No.585/2023 registered at Police Station Nagda, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404 of IPC & under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this offence. It is submitted that now, the statements of Rahul (PW-1), Dr. Anjali Tekam (PW-2), Hemant Sanghwi (PW-3), Munnalal (PW-4), Vijay Singh Sisodiya (PW-5), Rajesh (PW-6), and Sapna (PW-7) have been recorded before the trial Court, however, all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, but appellant is in custody since 24.09.2023. The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, hence prays for release of the appellants on bail during trial.

5. Counsel for the complainant opposed the application on the ground that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.

6. Counsel for the State has also opposed the appeal.

7. Heard and Perused the record.

8. In the instant case, seven witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they all have supported the case of the prosecution, thus, his case is not fit to be enlarged on bail at present, hence, the appeal is dismissed.

9. Now, come to the other facet of the case regarding delay in disposal of the case. The provision of Section 14(3) of SC/ST (POA), 1989, that is a mandate to conclude the trial within a period which reproduced as below:-

"In every trial in the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court, the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Special Court or the Exclusive Special Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that when the trial relates to an offence under this Act, the trial shall, as far as possible, be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet."

10. Large pendency of the cases may be the reason for trial judge but under trial cases requires priority and trial on day to day basis.

11. The Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Mir Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali in 2025 INSC 1155 has stressed on adopting the practice of conducting trial on day to day basis in important and sensitive cases. In such cases Apex Court has suggested the course to be adopted as below:-

"........[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.

[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except