[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5483
1 CRA-1666-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 24 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1666 of 2026
LOKESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Swati Namdev - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Aditya Garg - GA for the State.
None for the victim despite filing of the power.
ORDER
This is repeat second criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred by appellant- Lokesh being
aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2026 in BA No.106/2026 by Special Judge
(SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989), Dewas whereby the trial court has rejected the
application under section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 seeking bail in connection
with crime No.295/2025 registered at P.S.-Kantafod, District- Dewas (M.P.) for
the offence punishable under sections 64 (2)(m), 225, 332-B, 351(3) of the BNS,
2023 and sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant is in custody since 30.08.2025.
2. First criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated
26.11.2025 in CRA No.11318/2025.
3. This repeat second appeal has been preferred on the ground that he has
been falsely been implicated in the case. The trial court has committed error in
appreciating the fact that the appellant has been arraigned as an accused. The date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5483
2 CRA-1666-2026
of incident is of 15.09.2024 but FIR has been lodged on 13.08.2025. The DNA
report is negative. Prosecutrix did not raised any alarm. The appellant/accused is
ready to abide all the conditions imposed by the court.
4. Counsel for the State has opposed the criminal appeal.
5. Counsel for the victim filed memo of power but no one is appearing on
behalf of the victim to oppose the criminal appeal.
6. Perused the record.
7. Victim has been examined as PW-1 on 09.12.2025 and cross-examined
on 24.01.2026. Father of the victim has been examined as PW-2 on 09.12.2025
but his cross-examination has not been completed. Prosecutrix has supported the
prosecution story fully. There is no delay in trial on prosecution's side. The delay
is on the side of appellant. Trial court has taken the note of circumstances of
negative DNA report. Accordingly at present no case is made out for grant of bail
to the appellant, hence this criminal appeal is dismissed at present.
8. 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."
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5483
3 CRA-1666-2026
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5483
4 CRA-1666-2026
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."
10. The trial court is requested to conduct the trial on day to day basis
adopting the practice as mentioned above and complete the trial as expeditiously as
possible.
11. If there is any latches in producing the witnesses under protection then
erring persons will be taken seriously as per section 4 of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
12. Copy of this order be forwarded to Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act,
1989, Dewas, (M.P.) for conducting trial as above and copy be forwarded to the
In-charge Police Station- Kantafod, District- Dewas and the Public Prosecutor
appointed in the Special Court, Dewas to ensure the presence of the witnesses
before the trial court as above.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
