Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V.VISWANATHAN, JJ.
The Central Bureau of Investigation – Petitioner
Versus
Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 969 of 2025
Decided On : 22-09-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 309 [Section 346 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Adjournment – Impediment in speedy trial – Once examination of witnesses starts court concerned must continue trial from day to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom Public Prosecutor has given up) – It is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout said mandate with impunity – Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy grounds – 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 was held to be a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution – It is no longer possible to question legitimacy of right to speedy trial as a part of right to life under Article 21 of Constitution – Essence of Article 21 of Constitution lies not only in ensuring that no citizen is deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, but also that such procedure ensures both fairness and an expeditious conclusion of trial – Right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of Constitution of India. (Paras 21, 27, 28 and 31)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 309 [Section 346 of BNSS] – Speedy trial – One of significant factors contributing to delays in justice system is discretionary practice of non-continuous criminal trials, where evidence is heard by court in piecemeal fashion, with cases effectively spread out over course of many months or even years – While limited judicial or court resources and shortage of available court time due to volume of cases are often cited for use of this discretionary practice, costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to justice system as a whole can far outweigh perceived benefits – Practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was tradition about thirty years ago has been given a complete go-by – It is high time that courts revert to that practice – All High Courts need to constitute a Committee to discuss this issue very seriously for benefit of their respective district judiciaries – Chief Justices of High Courts may direct their administrative side to issue a circular to respective District Judiciaries stating that Court should not grant adjournment to suit convenience of Advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo – In case when accused is absent and witness is present for examination, in that case Court can cancel bail of accused if he is on bail – Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve system for framing a schedule of constructive working days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in advance, after ascertaining convenience of counsel on both sides – Directions issued. (Paras 35, 36 and 37)
Facts of the case:
Point in issue centres around right to speedy trial. Criminal trials are being delayed due to unnecessary adjournments sought by respective parties of the case and Courts frequently granting adjournments, resulting in trial of cases remaining undecided for years and decades.
Findings of Court:
Respondent-accused is duty bound to comply with all conditions imposed in bail order passed by High Court and fully cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Result : Petition disposed of with directions.
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. We are further informed that the victim has already stepped into the witness box and her oral evidence is being recorded. The next date fixed by the Trial Court for further examination of the victim is 18-12-2025.
5. We fail to understand that once the witnesses and more particularly when the victim herself has stepped into the witness box why this examination in piecemeal. Why should the trial court adjourn the further examination of the victim by a period of four months. The trial court owes an explanation in this regard. By granting time for further examination, the trial court could be said to have unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. This is something which we should not ignore as it is a matter of grave concern.
6. Even the CBI owes an explanation, more particularly the public prosecutor, in-charge of the Trial. Why the victim has been put in the box after a long time. The victim should have been the first witness to step into the witness box.
7. Registry shall call for an appropriate report from the trial court as regards the status of the trial. How many witnesses have been examined so far. When was the victim examined the last. How many more witnesses the prosecution intends to examine before the prosecution closes its evidence.
8. Let this report be called for so as to reach this Court within a period of one week from today.
9. We grant one week’s time to the respondent to file his counter affidavit
10. Post it on 22-9-2025 on top of the Board.”
2. In pursuance of the order passed by us, referred to above, we have received the Status Report from the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st -cum-Special Court, Tamluk, Distt. Purba Medinipur explaining in what circumstances the cross-examination of the victim had to be deferred and why the witnesses are being examined in piecemeal.
3. The entire Status Report dated 11-9-2025 reads thus:-
“In compliance to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in connection with Petition for Special Leave to Appeal(Criminal) No.969/2025 dated.08.09.2025, I beg to state as follows:
1) The date of recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses of the instant case vide TR(Atro) 31 of 2021 (arising out of arising out of R.C Case No. 056S20210033 of 2021) was fixed on 25.08.2025.
On that date the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for CBI placed the victim in witness Box and during recording of evidence, the victim suddenly fell ill and was unable to stand in the witness to depose further evidence. The Ld. Special Prosecutor for the CBI, submitted a petition praying for adjournment of the recording of the evidence of the victim and fixing another date for recording of her evidence. Considering the sudden illness of the victim and as per verbal submission of the prosecution, the p
(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
