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

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 122 of 2026 VAKIL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Pourush Ranka - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Rahul Solanki - GA for the State.

ORDER This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2025 in BA No.1819/2025 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Mandsaur (M.P.) whereby the application for grant of bail is rejected.

2. Appellant- VAKIL is facing trial for charges under sections 318(4), 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and under section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 arising out of crime no.519/2025 registered at P.S.-YD Nagar, District Mandaur (M.P.)

3. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The appellant is in custody since 16.12.2025. The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.

The conclusion of trial will likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail.

4. Counsel for the State opposed the criminal appeal by submitting that appellant has criminal antecedents.

5. Considering the criminal antecedents of the appellant, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant and accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed at present.

6. The state of affair in conducting the trial relating to the offence under section SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is not as per the mandate of section 14 (3) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which is being reproduced below:-

"(3) 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."

7. 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.

8. 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 for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:

a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be ca