Can't Serve Summons On Own Officer: Madhya Pradesh High Court Pulls Up Police, Prosecution

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant bail to an accused in the Ratlam murder case involving the death of a Dalit youth, while simultaneously expressing concern over the failure of authorities to ensure the presence of witnesses and directing that the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis and completed within six months.

Justice Gajendra Singh passed the order while dismissing a second criminal appeal filed by Prem Singh, who had challenged the rejection of his bail plea by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ratlam.

According to the prosecution, the incident took place on the intervening night of July 25 and 26, 2025. Ayush Malviya, a young man belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, had allegedly gone to meet the daughter of the accused, who belongs to the Rajput community, in village Mewasa of Ratlam district.

He was allegedly apprehended by the girl's family members, subjected to assault, and had his hair forcibly shaved. The injuries allegedly sustained during the incident resulted in his death. A criminal case was thereafter registered at Namli Police Station under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Tarun Kushwah argued that Prem Singh was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. It was contended that the First Information Report did not contain any specific allegations against him and that no overt act causing injury to the deceased had been attributed to him. The defence further claimed that the appellant reached the spot only after the incident had already taken place.

The appeal was opposed by Government Advocate Gajendra Singh Dodia for the State and Advocate Mrityunjay Pandey for the objector. After examining the record, the Court declined to interfere with the earlier order refusing bail.

However, while considering the status of the trial, the Court noted a disturbing situation regarding witness attendance. Referring to a prosecution report dated May 14, 2026, the Court observed that eleven witnesses had already been examined, but summons issued to certain witnesses, including Sub-Inspector K.K. Patel, could not be served. As a result, their evidence had not been recorded.

Expressing dissatisfaction, the Court remarked, "Prima facie, there appears to be a total lack of coordination between the prosecution and the Police Department." The Court further observed that it appeared the Superintendent of Police had "no effective control over the officials concerned with regard to ensuring service upon witnesses in heinous offences."

The Court specifically questioned how even the investigating Sub-Inspector could not be served with summons and directed the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, to ensure service of summons and look into the reasons behind the failure.

While holding that no case for grant of bail was made out, the Court turned its attention to the mandate under Section 14(3) of the SC/ST Act, which requires trials under the statute to proceed on a day-to-day basis and, as far as possible, be completed within two months from the filing of the charge sheet.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (2025), which emphasised expeditious trials, continuous recording of witness testimony, and strict control over unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, Justice Singh directed the trial court to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis by following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and ordered that the trial be completed within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

The Court further directed the Station House Officer of Namli Police Station to ensure that witnesses are produced before the trial court and remain under protection during the proceedings. Copies of the order were also directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, and the Special Judge dealing with SC/ST Act cases.

Case Title: Prem Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: May 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Gajendra Singh