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

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11422 of 2025 RAM Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mukesh Sinjonia - Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rahul Solanki - G.A. for the respondent/State.

Ms. Priyanka Raj Panwar - Advocate for the respondent [COMP].

ORDER This appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2025 in SCATR No.152/2022 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Mandleshwar, Khargone whereby application for release on behalf of appellant in connection with Crime No.268/2022 registered at P.S. Barwah, District Khargone under Section 294, 147, 149, 323, 506, 307, 302, 120B of the IPC and 3(1)(r), 3(4)(s) and 3(2) (v - a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act has been rejected.

2. This is the sixth application of appellant, who is in custody since

15.05.2022 and the main ground for filing this appeal is that there is a delay in trial and the main ground is that the co-accused persons have been released on bail.

3. As per report of P.S. Barwah, Khargone, there are total 22 witnesses have been examined and only three witnesses have to be examined namely Investigating Officer Ayush Kewat, Inspector Prakash Vaskle and Dr. Chalmela. For Ayush Kewat, the summons have been issued and for Prakash Vaskle and Dr. Chalmela, summons have not been issued.

Heard.

4. Counsel for the respondent/State as well as objector opposed the appeal and prays for dismissal of the same.

5. On perusal of police station Barwah, Khargone report that there are twenty two witnesses have been examined in the present case and three witnesses are yet to be examined and the case is fixed for 28.02.2026. Also perused the record and the material collected during the investigation and the nature of offence alongwith progress of the case, the present case is not a fit case for granting benefit of bail to the appellant/accused, hence, considering the gravity of the offence this criminal appeal is hereby dismissed.

6. The reasons for not completing the trial is not satisfactory. Concerned In-

charge of Police Station is not sensitive in such a serious matter and prosecution conducting the trial is also not sensitive. The in-charge P.S. Barwah, Khargone, is directed to keep the witnesses present as per the summon by the trial Court under process and submit all the reports as per the requirement of Section 14(3). These trials requires day to day hearing 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. 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.

[