Central Bureau of Investigation vs Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

Judgement Key Points

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 [p_35][p_36].

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 [p_48][p_49]. 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 [p_48][p_49].

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 [p_42][p_43][p_44]. 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 [p_16][p_24][p_54].

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 [p_11][p_12][p_21][p_22][p_25]. 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 [p_36][p_37][p_38].

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 [p_24][p_28][p_31][p_32][p_33][p_34][p_35][p_36][p_37][p_38][p_39][p_40][p_41].

Back Next

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1735

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Mr. V V V Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Mrs. Chitrangda Rastaravara, Adv. Mr. Rahul Thanwani, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anjan Datta, Adv. Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR

Headnote: Read headnote

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document