[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parvez @ Pravesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4120
1 CRA-11311-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 11311 of 2025
PARVEZ @ PRAVESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Prachi Bansal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Rahul Solanki appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-1].
ORDER
This is repeat (3rd) criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC &
ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated
30.08.2025 in SCATR No.72/2024 by Special Judge, SC & ST (POA) Act,
1989, Indore, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application filed under
section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the appellant seeking bail in connection
with Crime No.431/2025 registered at police station- Banganga, Indore, for
the offence punishable under section 307, 302, 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and
under Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(d), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989
regarding the murder of one Ajay Kushwah belonging to Scheduled Caste
community whereas the appellant/accused did not belong to SC/ST
community
2. Earlier, two applications (appeal) of the appellant were dismissed
i.e. first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.08.2024 passed in CRA
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4120
2 CRA-11311-2025
No.8618/2024, second appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.05.2025
passed in CRA No.3603/2025.
3. Challenging the impugned order, t his repeat criminal appeal has
been preferred on various grounds including that the appellant was not
present on the spot at the time of incident, the allegation against the appellant
are frivolous and vexatious in nature. He has no criminal antecedent. He
further referred to the statement of Chotu PW-4 recorded on 11.03.2025 in
which he has not stated the presence of the appellant on the spot.
4. Counsel for the State opposed the appeal.
5. Perused the record.
6. The role of present appellant is that on 23.03.2024 at about 07PM,
present appellant alongwith co-accused persons were demanding money for
cigarette from the deceased Ajay, he denied to pay the same then the
appellant alongwith co-accused hurled abuses to the deceased. He warned
not to repeat abusive words then the present appellant covered the mouth of
deceased by cloth and co-accused persons caused injuries to him by kicks
and fists. Ajay removed the cloth from his mouth and then the present
appellant caught hold the deceased Ajay and co-accused Titu provided knife
to one Juvenile/ child conflict with law and asked the child in conflict with
law to assault the deceased and child in conflict with law inflicted knife in
the stomach with force and due which Ajay succumbed to injuries. Rajkumar
Ahirwar is also the witness of the case, but he could not be examined till
date. The custody period of the appellant alone does not entitle the appellant
to enlarge him on bail.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4120
3 CRA-11311-2025
7. 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."
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4120
4 CRA-11311-2025
[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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4120
5 CRA-11311-2025
them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule
fixed by the Court."
9. In-charge, Police Station- Banganga, Indore District Indore is
directed to keep the witnesses present in the court under protection before
the concerned court and the learned Special Public Prosecutor before the
learned trial Court is also directed to co-operate in the trial.
10. Copies of this order be forwarded to Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Indore (M.P.), In-charge, Police Station Banganga, Indore and Special
Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court thorough trial Court for
necessary information and compliance.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
amit
