The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the statutory mandate for expeditious trial in cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, denying bail to an accused in a homicide case while directing strict compliance with day-to-day proceedings. The judgment underscores that procedural delays and lack of sensitivity in handling such sensitive cases undermine the very purpose of the Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Dinesh, was arrested on 11 August 2025 in connection with Crime No. 530/2025 registered at P.S. Manawar, Dhar. The prosecution alleges that he caused grievous injuries to Rahul, who died on 9 August 2025, following an alleged extramarital relationship between Rahul and the appellant’s wife. The case invokes Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023, both carrying severe penal consequences.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 06.08.2025: Alleged incident of grievous hurt
- 09.08.2025: Death of victim Rahul
- 11.08.2025: FIR registered, five days after the incident
- 23.12.2025: Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Dhar, rejected bail application
- 21.01.2026: Trial Court submitted report indicating only six of twenty-two witnesses examined
- 22.01.2026: Criminal Appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought bail on grounds of delayed FIR, lack of credible evidence, and his status as the sole earning member of his family. He contended the prosecution story was improbable and lacked corroboration.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act mandates day-to-day trial proceedings even when the investigation is incomplete, and whether the gravity of the offence and procedural laches justify denial of bail.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the FIR was filed with inordinate delay, casting doubt on the prosecution’s version. He emphasized the absence of eyewitnesses, lack of forensic evidence, and the appellant’s non-criminal record. Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail without evaluating the likelihood of flight or tampering.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is heinous and strikes at the social fabric protected by the statute. The prosecution highlighted the presence of twenty-two witnesses, the nature of the injuries, and the fact that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. It argued that the delay in trial was attributable to the prosecution’s lack of preparedness, not the accused’s conduct.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, which mandates that trials be conducted on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses are examined, unless adjournment is recorded with written reasons. The Court noted that the trial court had failed to adhere to this mandatory provision, allowing prolonged delays despite the presence of witnesses.
"The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously... When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing."
The Court cited Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman@ Ara @Mir Usman Ali to affirm that in cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act, the principle of expeditious justice is not discretionary but mandatory. It held that the failure of the police and prosecution to ensure witness availability and the trial court’s passive approach constituted a violation of the Act’s spirit.
The Court rejected the appellant’s bail plea not merely on the gravity of the offence, but because the procedural safeguards under the Act were being systematically undermined. The Court emphasized that the Act was enacted to provide swift redressal to marginalized communities, and delay in trial itself amounts to a denial of justice.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that day-to-day trial is mandatory under Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, and bail cannot be granted where procedural compliance is neglected. The trial must be completed within six months, and the police and prosecution are directed to ensure witness attendance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Day-to-Day Trial Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must immediately raise objections if trial is adjourned without written reasons under Section 14(3)
- Courts must proactively schedule daily hearings and issue summons through Public Prosecutors, as directed
- Failure to comply may attract contempt or disciplinary action under Section 4 of the Act
Bail Denial Must Be Rooted in Procedural Failure, Not Just Gravity
- While gravity of offence remains relevant, it cannot be the sole ground for denying bail in SC/ST (POA) cases
- Courts must assess whether the delay in trial stems from prosecutorial negligence or accused’s conduct
- Arnesh Kumar principles apply, but are superseded by the statutory mandate of Section 14(3)
Witness Protection Is a Judicial Duty
- Public Prosecutors must be entrusted with serving witness summons as per court-determined schedules
- Failure to produce witnesses may trigger action under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act against erring officials
- Courts should consider imposing costs on non-cooperative counsel or accused to compensate witnesses
