Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali – Respondent
Based on the provided legal document, the court emphasizes the paramount importance of conducting criminal trials in an expeditious manner, particularly once the examination of witnesses has commenced. The statutory mandate under Section 309 (now Section 346) of the Cr.P.C. clearly states that proceedings should be continued from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds a compelling reason to adjourn for the following day, which must be duly recorded (!) (!) .
The court disapproves of practices that lead to unnecessary delays, such as piecemeal examination of witnesses and indefinite adjournments, which can facilitate witness tampering and undermine the integrity of the trial (!) (!) . It underscores that once a witness begins to testify, the trial court's duty is to proceed continuously without undue postponements, except in exceptional circumstances supported by valid reasons (!) (!) .
The legal framework also mandates that adjournments should not be granted at the mere request of a party or their counsel unless there are extraordinary reasons, such as non-cooperation or unforeseen circumstances, which must be duly recorded (!) (!) (!) . The court highlights the importance of examining witnesses on the same day they are called, especially when they are present in court, to prevent harassment, intimidation, or tampering (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the court emphasizes that trial courts should avoid granting adjournments for convenience or frivolous reasons, and should instead adopt a strict approach to ensure trials proceed swiftly, especially in serious cases such as those involving serious offenses like rape (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . It advocates for judicial officers to be proactive in managing trial schedules and to issue administrative instructions or circulars to reinforce the mandate of speedy trials (!) (!) (!) .
Finally, the court reiterates that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, integral to the right to life and liberty, and that delays not justified by valid reasons violate this constitutional guarantee. It calls upon the judiciary to uphold this principle by strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and ensuring that trials are conducted continuously and efficiently until their conclusion (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail cancellation appeal by cbi initiated. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. concerns about prolonged cross-examination of victim. (Para 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding witness examination delays. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. emphasis on speedy trial and witness examination laws. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. trial timeline established with specific deadlines. (Para 38 , 41) |
| 6. conditions for bail and disposal of pending applications. (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
ORDER
1. Our order dated 8-9-2025 reads thus:-
“1. The CBI, being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, granting bail to the respondent in connection with an offence of rape, has preferred this petition seeking to get the bail cancelled.
2. At the relevant point of time, when the High Court granted bail to the respondent he was already in custody past 3 years and 5 months. It has been almost 1 year that the High Court ordered release of the respondent on bail.
3. We heard Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner – CBI and Mr. Anjan Datta, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. We are informed that the Trial Court has started recording oral evidence of the witnesses.
(1) Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds – Even in cases where accused had been enlarged on bail right to a speedy trial....
The right to cross-examine witnesses must be exercised promptly, and adjournments should only be granted for compelling reasons to ensure a fair trial.
The court reinforced that adjournments in criminal trials should be granted sparingly and only for valid reasons, emphasizing the importance of timely cross-examination.
Accused have a right to represent themselves through a pleader but cannot cross-examine witnesses using non-advocates without court permission, ensuring procedural integrity.
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
The main legal point established is that once the examination of a witness begins, the trial should proceed continuously, with adjournments only granted for the strongest possible reasons, and the du....
High Court inherent powers under BNSS Section 528 exercisable sparingly post-revision only for grave miscarriage of justice; trial court justified closing defence evidence after accused's repeated fa....
The main legal point established is the strict adherence to Section 309 of Cr.P.C., requiring expeditious trials and continuous examination of witnesses, with adjournments only granted for special re....
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, requiring trial courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure timely witness examination.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
