[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr.Ansar Sherani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9014
1 CRR-1288-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1288 of 2016
DR.ANSAR SHERANI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajendra Singh Suryavanshi - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 19.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 06.04.2026)
ORDER
This criminal revision under sections 397 & 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
arises out of order dated 18.01.2026 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge,
Ratlam (MP) in ST No.357/2015 whereby charges under section 120-B of
the IPC has been framed against the revision petitioner regarding incident
dated 17.04.2015 in which Vusat Zaidi was attempted to murder by co-
accused Sajat Mansuri and Vikas Parihar and charges under section 307 of
the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 have been framed against
Sajat Mansuri and charges under section 307 read with section 34 of the IPC
and section 25(1-b)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 have been framed against
Vikas Parihar on the basis of final report submitted in crime No.223/2015
registered at P.S.-Station Road, Ratlam.
2. This revision petition is preferred on the ground that revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9014
2 CRR-1288-2016
petitioner has been implicated in the present case after five months of date of
incident and police had no reasons to arrest the present revision petitioner.
He has made accused on the strength of memo recorded under section 27 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Trial court failed to consider that the mobile
number on the basis of which it has been shown that the revision petitioner
was in touch with other co-accused is registered in the name of Devi Singh
and there is nothing to show that said number belongs to present revision
petitioner. There is nothing to show in the transcript submitted to show that
present revision petitioner has even threatened the injured persons.Trial court
failed to consider that there is nothing to show any cogent reason of enmity
of the present revision petitioner with the victim and family members.
3. Heard.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.
5. Perused the final report filed under section 173 of the Cr.P.C., 1973
and documents collected during the investigation and appended with the final
report.
6. Complicity of the present revision petitioner in the alleged offence
came into the light on the facts that in the year 2011 admission of son of the
revision petitioner was secured in a college at Indore on payment of one and
a half lac rupees to the victim. Thereafter, admission was cancelled and
victim did not return back the amount and revision petitioner threatened 30
to 40 times to the victim on phone in the year 2012. Thereafter, he threatened
from the jail in the year 2012 and 2013. Call Detail Record was also
collected and trajectory of call details between the revision petitioner and co-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9014
3 CRR-1288-2016
accused Vikas and victim reveals that prior to the incident there were 26
calls between the revision petitioner and Vikas from 14.04.2015 to
18.04.2015 and there were 11 calls on 11.04.2015. Further there were 7 calls
between the revision petitioner and victim Vusat Zaidi between 28, 29, 30
December 2014 and thereafter on 13, 14 and 15 January 2015. IMEI number
of device used to call Vikas and Vusat Zaidi matches with the IMEI number
of samsung mobile seized on 23.09.2015 from the revision petitioner.
7. The above collected materials satisfy the standard of prima
facie case required for framing of charges against the revision petitioner.
Hence, this revision petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
8. The status received from trial court mentions that the progress in the
case hampered as court is vacant. More than 10 years have been consumed
without logical conclusion of the case. This case requires priority.
Accordingly, Sessions Judge, Ratlam (MP) is requested to take care of the
position as intimated by in-charge court and take necessary steps to ensure
speedy disposal of the case in the light of Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs. Mir Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali in 2025 INSC 1155 where the Apex
Court 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9014
4 CRR-1288-2016
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 cancelled.
b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion
with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not
cooperating with the trial, the Court may for
reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae
for the accused and fix a date for proceeding
with cross-examination/trial.
c. The Court may also in appropriate cases
impose cost on the accused commensurate with
the loss suffered by the witness including the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9014
5 CRR-1288-2016
expenses to attend the court.
d. In case when the accused is absent and the
witness is present for examination, in that case
the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is
on bail. (Unless an application is made on his
behalf seeking permission for his counsel to
proceed to examine the witness present even in
his absence, provided the accused gives an
undertaking in writing that, he would not
dispute, his identity as a particular accused in
the case.)
[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may
evolve the system for framing a schedule of
constructive working days for examination of
witnesses in each case, well in advance, after
ascertaining the convenience of counsel on both
sides.
[7] The summons or process could be handed
over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the
case to cause them to be served on the
witnesses, as per schedule fixed by the Court."
9. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Sessions Judge, Ratlam and
concerned trial court.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
