Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571
1 CRA-1678-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1678 of 2026
ARJUN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Vivek Sing, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Rajesh Yadav,
counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anil Kumar Namdev, learned counsel for the respondent [OBJ].
Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This second (repeat) Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in B.A. No.135/2026 by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Mandsaur (M.P.), whereby the application for grant of bail filed by the appellant has been rejected. The appellant was arrested on 27.01.2025 in connection with Crime No.488/2024 registered at Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 351(3), 109, 324(4), 49 and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(f), 3(1)
(g), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571 2 CRA-1678-2026 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant is presently facing trial in SCATR No.9/2025.
2. As per prosecution case, Balaram Meghwal, a member of scheduled caste had erected a tapri on govt. land at village Dhakni P.S. Garoth District Mandsaur near the agriculture field of Arjun Singh Rajput. Balram Meghwal used that tapri as a cow shed and Arjun Singh Rajput was objecting for erecting the tapri by Balram and instructed Balram to remove his tapri on 14.11.2024. When Balram did not removed the tapri then again on 06.12.2024 warning was issued by Arjun to Balram. When Balram did not paid heed to the threats extended by Arjun Singh Rajput then accused persons formed unlawful assembly to remove the tapri of Balram and armed with deadly weapon including fire arms, they reached the tapri with tractor and car and in process of removing the tapri Shubnabai wife of Balram Meghwal lost her life due to the injuries caused by fire arms and one Ramgopal sustained injuries caused by firearm. Sukhdev, any how escaped the assault of firearm. Balram Meghwal was assaulted by sticks. The tapri was dismantled and the material was removed using trolley attached with tractor. Law enforcement agency came into action on the report lodged by Sukdev that resulted in registration of FIR No.488/2024 registered at P.S.- Garoth, District-Mandsaur at 3 p.m. on 06.12.2024.
3. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the first Criminal Appeal No.2926/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after three months before the trial Court and thereafter before this Hon'ble Court, if required. It is contended Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571 3 CRA-1678-2026 that there is no legal and admissible evidence against the present appellant. The son of the appellant, Narayan Singh, was named in the F.I.R.; however, he lives separately, and the present appellant has been implicated only on the basis of alleged call detail records between them. It is further submitted that the appellant was initially implicated on the basis of the memorandum statement recorded under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) of co-accused Narendra Singh, which is inadmissible in evidence. There is no direct allegation against the present appellant. It is also submitted that the criminal antecedents shown against the appellant are not relevant as the appellant has already been acquitted in those cases, namely: Crime No.23/2020, registered at Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur under Sections 376(2)(h), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n), 376A, 376D, 344, 328, 376(1)(w) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Crime No.335/2019, registered at Police Station Garoth, District Mandsaur under Sections 147, 148, 294, 323 and 506 IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the present appeal and prayed for its disposal.
5. Learned counsel for the victim has also opposed the appeal submitting that Sukhdeo has been examined as PW-1 on 05.03.2026 and one another witness has also been examined till now. It is submitted that there is a possibility that the evidence may be affected if the appellant is released on bail.
6. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571 4 CRA-1678-2026 acquisition against the present appellant is serious in nature. The material collected during the investigation is to the effect that the appellant/accused is the brain behind the whole incident. When we see the comparative position of the appellant/accused and the victims and the fact that the evidence is being recorded than the appellant cannot be extended the benefit of bail at present. Hence, no case for interference is made out.
7. In view of the above, the present criminal appeal stands dismissed, at present.
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.
[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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571 5 CRA-1678-2026 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."
9. The trial court is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis adopting the practice as mentioned above.
10. In-Charge, Police Station- Garoth, District- Mandsaur is also directed to keep present the witnesses before the trial court under protection on the next date of hearing and on other dates as fixed by the trial court by providing transport facility as per Rule 11 of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, Rules, 1995.
11. Copy of this order be forwarded to Trial court, In-Charge, Police Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:6571 6 CRA-1678-2026 Station- Garoth, District-Mandsaur.
C.C. as per rules.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE VS Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA SINGH Signing time: 12-Mar-26 8:02:08 PM