The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that trials should not be unduly delayed, balancing procedural fairness with judicial efficiency.

ORDER :

C.S. DIAS, J.

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 8 in S.C. No. 903/2022, pending before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’). The case has arisen from Crime No.203/2022, registered by the Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 118, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) r/w Section 7(a) of the Arms Act.

2. The 1^st petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are under-trial prisoners. By Annexure-1 order, this Court had dismissed the bail application filed by the 9^th accused, but directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of framing of charge. As the trial could not be completed within the stipulated time, this Court has extended the time to conclude the trial until 25.03.2026, at the request of the Trial Court. The petitioners’ counsel, a senior member of the Bar, has been under continuous treatment since 2017 for diabetic neuropathy and other ailments. Owing to his illness, the petitioners’ counsel filed an application to postpone the trial for two months. The application was allowed, rescheduling the trial to 01.11.2025. On the scheduled day, although the petitioner’s counsel reached the court premises, he was unable to climb the staircase to the first floor, where the Trial Court is situated. There is no elevator in the court complex. This difficulty was brought to the notice of the Trial Court and was cross-checked by the Special Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the Trial Court adjourned the trial and issued a stop memo to the remaining witnesses. The counsel for the accused Nos. 3 and 7 desire that the petitioner’s counsel conduct the cross-examination of the remaining witnesses on their behalf. The prosecution has cited 167 witnesses, of whom 94 have been examined. The prosecution proposes to examine 14 more witnesses. Given the petitioners’ counsel’s familiarity with the case, his continued service is necessary for an effective and meaningful trial. Accordingly, the petitioners’ counsel filed an application to adjourn the trial by a further period of three months. However, by the impugned Annexure 6 order, the Trial Court has rejected the said application. The impugned order is ex facie erroneous, improper and irregular.

3. I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Sri. Rajit reiterates the contention that the application to adjourn the trial was filed solely due to the illness of the petitioners’ counsel, who was unable to climb the staircase. Hence, treating the matter as a special case, this Court may direct that the venue for the remaining trial be shifted to a court hall situated on the ground floor of the court complex; alternatively, the trial be adjourned for another three months.

5. Opposing the Crl. M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor submits that this Court has already directed the case to be disposed of by 25.03.2026. Again, 14 more witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution. After that, the questioning of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is to be conducted, the defence evidence, if any, is to be let in, and the final hearing is to be conducted. If the case is adjourned as requested, it will exceed the time limit fixed by this Court. Hence, a reasonable but limited extension may be granted.

6. This Court has directed the trial in S.C. No. 903/2022 to be concluded on or before 25.03.2026. Despite the deadline, the Trial Court, in deference to the petitioner’s coun