Shraddha Walkar murder: Delhi HC rejects plea by brother to fix deadline for trial

The Court noted that the case is already proceeding on a day-to-day basis and that the trial court has been making every endeavour to complete the trial promptly.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court
Published on
2 min read
Listen to this article

The Delhi High Court today declined to entertain a plea seeking the time-bound conclusion of the trial against Aftab Poonawalla, who is accused of murdering and dismembering his live-in partner Shraddha Walkar in 2022.

A Bench of Justice Madhu Jain held that no such directions are required since the trial court was already conducting day-to-day proceedings and making every endeavour to conclude the case as soon as possible.

Justice Madhu Jain
Justice Madhu Jain

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Walkar's brother. He told the Court that Walkar's family have not been able to perform her final rites because her body's remains were still in the custody of the investigating agency and the trial court. These remains will only be handed over once the trial is over.

Walkar's brother, however, flagged concerns that the trial is unlikely to finish in the next five years if it continues at the current pace. The trial court's own order showed 48 witnesses were still to be examined, his counsel said.

The State's counsel informed that of 222 total witnesses, 157 had already been examined. Six examinations remained pending, including four overseas data witnesses from Google and Bumble, and one nodal officer. Fourteen witnesses remain to be cross-examined, he added.

"The matter is going to be on day to day basis," said Senior counsel Amit Prasad, representing the Delhi Police.

He further told the Court that the trial court, in a May 2026 order, had already put the accused on notice to ensure his counsel appeared regularly, and that hearings were being held daily except on weekends.

Recording these submissions, the Court held that it was evident the trial court was making every effort to conclude the trial expeditiously, and that no further directions were warranted since day-to-day proceedings were already underway.

The petitioner's counsel pressed the Court to pass some direction for a time-bound conclusion, but the request was not entertained.

[Read Live Coverage]

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com