Delhi HC Refuses Plea for Time-Bound Trial in Shraddha Walkar Murder Case
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea seeking a time-bound conclusion of the trial against Aftab Poonawalla, the man accused of murdering and dismembering his live-in partner, Shraddha Walkar, in 2022.
A Bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed that no additional directions were necessary as the trial court was already conducting the proceedings on a day-to-day basis and making every effort to conclude the trial expeditiously.
The plea was filed by Shraddha Walkar's brother, who submitted that the family had been unable to perform her last rites because her mortal remains continue to remain in the custody of the investigating agency and the trial court. He argued that the remains would only be released after the trial concludes.
Expressing concern over the pace of the proceedings, the petitioner contended that the trial was unlikely to conclude within the next five years if it continued at the current rate. He pointed out that, according to the trial court's records, 48 witnesses were still left to be examined.
Opposing the plea, the State informed the High Court that significant progress had already been made. Of the 222 witnesses listed in the case, 157 have been examined. Six examinations remain pending, including four overseas data witnesses from Google and Bumble, along with one nodal officer. Additionally, 14 witnesses are yet to be cross-examined.
Senior Advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that the trial was already being conducted on a day-to-day basis. He also informed the Court that, through an order passed in May 2026, the trial court had directed the accused to ensure the regular appearance of his counsel so that the proceedings could continue without unnecessary delays.
Taking note of these submissions, the High Court held that the trial court was making every possible effort to complete the proceedings at the earliest and found no reason to issue further directions. It, therefore, declined the petitioner's request for a time-bound completion of the trial.
