Manohar Kewat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Gajendra Singh, J

This is first criminal appeal under section 14A (2) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is preferred against the order dated 24.02.2026 in BA No.249/2026 by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 -Mandsaur (M.P.) 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.532/2024 registered at police station- Daloda (M.P.) for the offence punishable under sections 103(1) & 238 of the B.N.S., 2023 and section 3(2) (v-a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this court to withdraw the criminal appeal with direction to the trial court to conduct day to day trial.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, criminal appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

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."

Large pendency of the cases may be the reason for trial judge but under trial cases requires priority and trial on day to day basis.

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.

[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 them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule fixed by the Court."

Trial court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis adopting the practice as mentioned above and complete the trial within six months from receipt of copy of this order passed today.

Copy of this order be forwarded to Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Mandsaur (M.P.).

In-charge, Police Station- Daloda, Mandsaur is directed to keep the witnesses present in the court under protection before the concerned court.