MP High Court Flags 'Lack Of Coordination' Between Police, Prosecution; Says If IO Can't Be Served Summons, Status Of Other Witnesses Imaginable
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has flagged a 'total lack of coordination' between the police department and the prosecution after observing that, in a murder case the testimony of a Sub-Inspector could not be recorded because of failure to serve summons to him. The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh opined, "If even a Sub-Inspector of the Police Department could not be served, then the status of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has flagged a 'total lack of coordination' between the police department and the prosecution after observing that, in a murder case the testimony of a Sub-Inspector could not be recorded because of failure to serve summons to him.
The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh opined,
"If even a Sub-Inspector of the Police Department could not be served, then the status of the other witnesses can well be imagined. The prosecution appears to be completely unaware of the same. Prima facie, there appears to be a total lack of coordination between the prosecution and the Police Department, and it further appears that the Superintendent of Police has no effective control over the officials concerned with regard to ensuring service upon witnesses in heinous offences".
In light of the situation, the court directed the Superintendent of Police of Ratlam to ensure service of summons and to ascertain why Sub-Inspector KK Patel, who had conducted the inquiry in the case, could not be served.
The observations came while the court was hearing a criminal appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST Prevention of Strocities Act challenging the rejection of appellant's bail application.
Per the facts of the case, a boy, Ayush, belonging to the scheduled caste community, came to meet the appellant's daughter, who belongs to the Rajput community. The boy was apprehended by the family members, and his head was shaved. Further, the boy was subjected to physical assault, resulting in his death.
On the information of the appellant's daughter, an FIR was lodged and the applicant was apprehended. The appellant's plea seeking bail was rejected, considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries.
Challenging the order, the appellant argued that he was falsely implicated in the case as there was no evidence to connect him with the aforementioned offence. The appellant further argued that no specific allegations were directed at him in the FIR and that he reached the spot only after the incident had occured.
Examining the prosecution's report, the court noted that as many as 11 witnesses were examined till May 14, 2026.
However, the Deputy Director of prosecution informed the court that one witness, Shailendra and another Sub Inspector KK Patel could not be served and therefore their evidence was not recorded.
The bench, taking a serious note of the submission, remarked that if a Sub-Inspector of Police could not be summoned, then the status of the other witnesses can well be imagined.
Taking serious note of the submission, the court expressed concern over the apparent failure of coordination between police machinery and prosecution in ensuring the presence of a witness in a criminal case.
The court observed that if a summons could not even be served to a Sub-Inspector, the condition of other witnesses "can well be imagined". Thus, the court passed the aforementioned directions.
Further, after considering the material on record, the court rejected the appeal. However, since the case belonged to the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the court deemed it prudent to expedite the trial. Thus, the court directed the Trial Court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis.
Case Title: Prem Singh v State of MP, CRA-3722-2026
For Appellant: Advocate Tarun Kushwah
For State: Government Advocate Gajendra Singh Dodia