MP High Court Dismisses Bail in SC/ST Atrocities Case, Orders Day-to-Day Trial Within Six Months

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore dismissed bail of the accused in a custodial death case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after finding that the prosecution could not even serve summons on a Sub-Inspector who conducted the inquiry — and directed the Special Court to complete trial within six months on a day-to-day basis.

On 18 May 2026, Justice Gajendra Singh of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dismissed a second bail appeal filed by Prem Singh, who has been in custody since 26 July 2025 in connection with the death of Ayush Malviya, a member of the Scheduled Castes community. The court found no case for bail, but went further to record a sharp finding about the state of the prosecution and directed the trial court to proceed on a day-to-day basis and conclude within six months.

The Incident and the Charges

In the intervening night of 25–26 July 2025, Ayush Malviya, who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, went to meet the daughter of the accused Prem Singh, who belongs to the Rajput community, at village Mewasa, Police Station Namli, District Ratlam. He was apprehended by family members. His hair were shaved and he was subjected to physical assault, which resulted in his death.

On information from the girl, Crime No. 321/2025 was registered at Police Station Namli. Prem Singh was arrested and charged under Section 103(1), 103(2), 133, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and under Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(r), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up before the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ratlam.

Bail History and the Second Appeal

The Special Judge, Ratlam rejected Prem Singh's bail application by order dated 15 April 2026 in SCATR No. 191/2025, referring to the manner in which the incident was caused and the nature of injuries. A first bail appeal had already been dismissed as withdrawn on 12 January 2026.

The present appeal was filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which provides a statutory route for a second appeal against bail refusal orders passed by Special Courts. Counsel for the appellant argued that no specific allegation was mentioned against Prem Singh in the FIR, that no overt act was attributed to him for causing injury to the deceased, and that he had reached the spot only after the incident had occurred.

The State and the objector's counsel opposed the appeal and sought its dismissal.

Prosecution's Failure to Serve Its Own Witness

The court's attention was drawn to a prosecution report dated 14 May 2026. As many as eleven witnesses had been examined by that date. However, the Deputy Director of Prosecution reported that summons issued to two witnesses — one Shailendra and Sub-Inspector K.K. Patel — could not be served, and their evidence had therefore not been recorded.

Sub-Inspector K.K. Patel was the officer who had conducted the inquiry in the case. The court found it telling that the prosecution could not secure service on its own investigating officer. Justice Gajendra Singh observed that if even a Sub-Inspector of the Police Department could not be served, the position with respect to other witnesses could well be imagined.

The court recorded that there appeared to be a prima facie total lack of coordination between the prosecution and the Police Department, and that the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam appeared to have no effective control over the officials concerned in ensuring service of summons in a heinous offence. The Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure service of summons and to look into why Sub-Inspector K.K. Patel, who conducted the inquiry, was not being served.

Why Bail Was Refused

On the merits of the bail plea, the court found that no case for grant of bail was made out and dismissed the criminal appeal. The order does not elaborate further on the individual grounds raised by the appellant, but the refusal follows the Special Court's earlier finding on the manner of the incident and the nature of injuries, which the High Court did not disturb.

Day-to-Day Trial Mandate and the Supreme Court's Directions

The court then turned to the statutory framework and Supreme Court guidance on trial conduct. Section 14(3) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires that proceedings in every trial before a Special Court or Exclusive Special Court shall be continued from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, with adjournments beyond the following day permitted only for reasons recorded in writing. The proviso requires that, as far as possible, the trial be completed within two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.

The court relied on the Supreme Court's directions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, 2025 INSC 1155, which stressed conducting trials on a day-to-day basis in important and sensitive cases. The High Court reproduced the course of action suggested by the Supreme Court in that case, which includes the following directions applicable to trial courts:

• Proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.
• Once the stage of examination of witnesses begins, examination shall continue from day to day until all witnesses in attendance are examined, except for special reasons recorded in writing.
• No adjournment or postponement shall be granted when witnesses are in attendance, except for special reasons recorded in writing.
• Adjournments to suit the convenience of an advocate shall not be granted except on very exceptional grounds such as bereavement in the family, duly supported by a memo. Inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for bypassing Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• In cases of non-cooperation by the accused or counsel, the trial court may, if satisfied that non-cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial, put the accused on notice to show cause why bail cannot be cancelled.
• Where the lawyer is not cooperating but the accused is not in collusion, the court may appoint an amicus curiae and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination or trial.
• The court may impose costs on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness, including expenses to attend court.
• If the accused is absent and the witness is present, the court may cancel bail unless an application is made on the accused's behalf seeking permission for counsel to proceed, with the accused giving an undertaking in writing that he would not dispute his identity.
• The Presiding Officer may evolve 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.
• Summons or process may be handed over to the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case to cause them to be served on witnesses as per the schedule fixed by the court.

Directions to Police and the Trial Court

Acting on these principles, the High Court directed the trial court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis, adopting the practice set out above, and to complete the trial within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

A copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam and to the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Ratlam. The In-charge of Police Station Namli, Ratlam was separately directed to keep the witnesses present in court under protection before the concerned court.

Outcome

Criminal Appeal No. 3722 of 2026 was dismissed. Prem Singh's bail application stands rejected. The Special Court, Ratlam is directed to complete the trial within six months on a day-to-day basis. The Superintendent of Police, Ratlam is directed to ensure service of summons on Sub-Inspector K.K. Patel and to address the coordination failure between the prosecution and the police. The In-charge, Police Station Namli is directed to ensure witness protection.