THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusMIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI

         [2025] 9 S.C.R. 1490 : 2025 INSC 1155

          The Central Bureau of Investigation
                          v.
          Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
     (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 969 of 2025)
                       22 September 2025
      [J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her
examination can be done in piecemeal.

                            Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.309 – Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Examination of witnesses – In
the instant case, trial court recorded the statement of the victim
and thereafter adjourned the matter for further examination by
a period of four months – Whether such prevailing practice
can be approved:
Held: Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS,
2023) contains a mandatory provision that in every inquiry or trial,
the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in
particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the
same shall be continued from day to day basis until all the witnesses
in attendance have been examined unless the Court finds the
adjournment of the case beyond the following day to be necessary
for reasons to be recorded – The emphasis of this Section cannot
be overlooked and must not be overlooked by any Judicial Officer
who tries a criminal case, much less by the higher officers, like the
Sessions Judges presiding over the Sessions Court, where serious
offences are being tried day in and day out – It is true that the court
has the discretion to defer the cross examination – But this Court
does not approve the practice prevailing in the trial courts across
the country that the examination-in-chief of a particular witness is
recorded in a particular month and his cross-examination would
follow in particular subsequent month – The legal position is that
once the examination of witnesses starts the court concerned
must continue the trial from day to day until all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined (except those whom the public
prosecutor has given up). [Paras 20 and 21]
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                               1491

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.309 – Bharatiya Nagarik
     Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – s.346 – Directions by the Supreme
     Court – The Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct
     their administrative side to issue a circular to the respective
     district judiciaries stating as under:
     Held: 1) The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held
     expeditiously; 2) When the stage of examination of witnesses
     starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day
     until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined
     except for special reasons to be recorded in writing; 3) When the
     witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or
     postponement shall be granted without examining them, except
     for special reasons to be recorded in writing; 4) The Court should
     not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate
     concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement
     in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by
     memo – Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is
     not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the immunity
     of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.; 5) In case of non-cooperation of
     accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind: a) In
     case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy
     itself whether the non-cooperation is in active collusion with the
     accused to delay the trial – If it is so satisfied for reasons to be
     recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused
     on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled; b) In
     cases where the accused is not in collusion with lawyer and it is
     the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for
     reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused
     and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial; c) The
     Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost on the accused
     commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including
     the expenses to attend the court; d) In case when the accused
     is absent and the witness is present for examination, in that case
     the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail (Unless an
     application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel
     to proceed to examine the witness present even in his absence,
     provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that, he
     would not dispute, his identity as a particular accused in the case.);
     6) The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the system for
     framing a schedule of constructive working days for examination
     of witnesses in each case, well in advance, after ascertaining
1492                                                          [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    the convenience of counsel on both sides; 7) The summons or
    process could be handed over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge
    of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses, as per
    schedule fixed by the Court. [Para 37]

    Constitution of India – Art.21 – Right to Speedy Trial:
    Held: In the light of the settled legal position that it is no longer
    possible to question the legitimacy of the right to speedy trial as
    a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution – The
    essence of Article 21 of the 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 the trial – Section 309 has been inserted in the Cr.P.C. keeping
    in view this constitutional mandate of speedy trial. [Paras 28,32]

                             Case Law Cited
    State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. [2001] 2 SCR 854 :
    (2001) 4 SCC 667; Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 3
    SCR 563 : (2013) 7 SCC 108; Doongar Singh and Ors. v. State
    of Rajasthan, 2017 INSC 1154 : [2017] 11 SCR 222; Mohd.
    Khalid v. State of W.B. [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 31 : (2002) 7 SCC
    334; Akil alias Javed v. State of Delhi [2012] 13 SCR 659 : 2012
    (11) SCALE 709; Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary,
    State of Bihar, Patna [1979] 3 SCR 169 : (1980) 1 SCC 81; A.R.
    Antulay v. R. S. Nayak [1991] Supp. 3 SCR 325 : (1992) 1 SCC
    225; Sher Singh v. State of Punjab [1983] 2 SCR 582 : (1983) 2
    SCC 344; Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration)
    [1984] 2 SCR 438 : AIR 1984 SC 618; Sheela Barse v. Union of
    India [1986] 3 SCR 562; Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi
    Administration) [1984] 2 SCR 438 : (1984) 1 SCC 722 – relied on.
    Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab [2000] 3 SCR 572 : (2000) 5 SCC
    668; Javed Ahmed Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra
    [1985] 2 SCR 8 : (1985) 1 SCC 275; Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat
    [1989] 1 SCR 509 : (1989) 1 SCC 678; Biswanath Prasad Singh v.
    State of Bihar (1994) Supp. 3 SCC 97; Mahendra Lal Das v. State
    of Bihar and Ors. [2001] Supp. 4 SCR 157 : (2002) 1 SCC 149;
    Babu Singh v. State of U.P. [1978] 2 SCR 777 : AIR 1978 SC
    527; Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab [2015] 1 SCR 504 : 2015
    (1) SCALE 542 – referred to.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            1493

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bharatiya
     Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

                              List of Keywords
     Section 309 of CrPC; Section 346 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
     Sanhita, 2023; Right to speedy trial; Right to life; Examination of
     witnesses; Adjournment of case; Expeditious disposal of the inquiry
     or trial; Trial on day to day basis; Deferment of cross-examination;
     Delay in trial; Collusion with lawyer.

                             Case Arising From
     Extraordinary Appellate Jurisdiction: Special Leave Petition (Crl.)
     No. 969 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 25.09.2024 of the High Court
     at Calcutta in CRM(DB) No. 2763 of 2024

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sayooj
     Mohandas, V V V Pattabhi Ram, Mrs. Chitrangda Rastaravara,
     Rahul Thanwani.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Anjan Datta, Tamal Taru Panda, Ms. Ishita Srivastava, Sumon
     Pathak, Vishal Arun Mishra.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   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.
1494                                                      [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        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.”
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           1495

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

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 prayer
           of the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor was allowed fixing
           18.12.2025 for further recording of evidence of the victim.
           (the copy of petition of the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor
           dated 25.08.2025 praying for adjournment due to illness
           of the victim is enclosed herewith this Explanation).
           I beg to add that this Court would have concluded the
           recording of evidence of the victim on that very date had
           the victim not fell ill in witness Box during recording her
           evidence.
           2) This Court not only tries the sessions cases but being the
           Special Court also tries the cases under the Narcotic Drugs
           & Psychotropic Substances(NDPS) Act, Scheduled Caste
           and Scheduled Tribes Act, Prevention of Corruption Act,
1496                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


        Electricity Act. Offences under Section 409 of I.P.C/116(5)
        of BNS and also hearing Civil Appeals, MACC Cases, L.A
        Cases and other types of civil cases. The total number of
        pending cases as on 01.08.2025 was 4,731. There are lot
        of Custody Trial Cases are pending in my court basically
        NDPS Cases and some Sessions (Murder) cases. So,
        to accommodate the dates for the custody trial cases in
        order to prioritize the disposal of the same and other cases
        in which the accused persons are facing stringent bail
        conditions as well as the reduction of arear cases pending
        for more than 10 &; 20 years cases in view of the order
        of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, as conveyed by the
        Office of the Ld. District Judge, Purba Medinipur, Tamluk,
        vide Memo No. 353/XVII-I, dated, 12th February, 2025 for
        implementation of the action plan for arrear reduction of
        cases within specified period, the date of the aforesaid
        case was fixed on 18.12.2025 which was completely
        unintentional. Moreover the Civil Courts in West Bengal
        will remain close for a month i.e. on and from 27.09.2025
        to 23.10.2025 due to ‘Durga Puja Festival’.
        3) It is to be mentioned out here that the date of recording of
        the victim fixed on 18.12.2025 is shifted back to 24.10.2025
        i.e. on the opening date of Court after Puja vacation with an
        assurance that henceforth a very shorthand consecutives
        dates will be fixed for recording evidence of the other
        prosecution witnesses once the recording of evidence of
        the victim is concluded. The change of date of recording
        evidence of the victim has already been intimated to both
        the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and the Ld.
        Defence Counsel with a direction to be present on that
        date positively for recording the evidence of the victim.
        Status of the Trial:
        4) The prosecution has first placed the defacto-complainant
        i.e. the daughter-in-law of the victim for recording her
        evidence and the defacto-complainant has been examined
        as PW-1 and till date only one witness has examined
        so far as the proceedings of the case was stayed for
        a considerable period of time. The Ld. Special Public
        Prosecutor placed the victim for recording evidence first
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          1497

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           on 25.08.2025 and during recording of evidence, the
           victim suddenly fell ill and as per prayer of the Ld. Public
           Prosecutor for CBI, the recording of her evidence is
           adjourned fixing 18.12.2025. The date of recording of the
           evidence fixed on 18.12.2025 is shifted back to 24.10.2025
           on the date of opening of Court after Puja Vacation.
           This Court assures that consecutives dates will be fixed
           for recording evidence of the other prosecution witnesses
           once the recording of evidence of the victim is concluded.
           The prosecution did not submit any list as to how many
           more witnesses it intends to examine before closing it’s
           evidence.
           This is for favour of your Honour for kind information and
           pray for placing the same before the Hon’ble Court.”
4.   What we have been able to understand from the aforesaid is that
     while the victim was in the witness box and was being cross-
     examined by the defence counsel, she all of a sudden fell ill and in
     such circumstances, the Trial Judge had to discontinue her further
     cross-examination. The further cross-examination of the victim was
     straight away adjourned by four months. The next date fixed was
     24.10.2025.
5.   We heard Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, the learned Additional Solicitor
     General appearing for the CBI and Mr. Anjan Datta, the learned
     counsel appearing for the respondent – accused.
6.   According to the learned ASG, the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the
     trial intends to examine as many as 30 witnesses. According to her,
     at one point of time, the prosecution wanted to examine almost 60
     witnesses. However, later wisdom dawned upon the learned Public
     Prosecutor and now he has brought down the number to 30.
7.   We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine
     30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape. What is the idea in
     multiplying the witnesses on one particular issue or the other.
8.   We are conscious of the fact that it is the Public Prosecutor who
     could be said to be in-charge of the criminal trial, but at the same
     time, if the Court finds that unnecessary examination of the witnesses
     is protracting the trial, then definitely it is a matter of concern. This
1498                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     aspect should be looked into by the Trial Judge himself. The Trial
     Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine
     a particular witness.
9.   In the present case, the accused has been ordered to be released
     on bail. Take a case where the accused is in jail and four years have
     elapsed as an under-trial prisoner, then what would be the position?
10. Over a period of time, this Court in many of its Judgments and orders
    has said that it is the quality of the evidence that is important and
    not the quantity. If examination of unnecessary witnesses is delaying
    the trial, it would serve no good purpose.
11. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the respondent –
    accused was ordered to be released on bail last year i.e., on 24-9-
    2024 and almost one year is going to elapse, we are not persuaded
    to set aside the bail and order that he may be taken back in custody.
    We want to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously and only
    important witnesses are examined by the State to prove its case.

     Position of Law
12. Section 309 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”)
    reads as under:
          “309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.-
          (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be
          continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in
          attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds
          the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to
          be necessary for reasons to be recorded:
          Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence
          under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section
          376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA or
          section DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the
          inquiry or trial shall] be completed within a period of two
          months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.
          (2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or
          commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
          postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or
          trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                            1499

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks
           fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by
           a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
           Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused
           person to custody under this section for a term exceeding
           fifteen days at a time:
           Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance,
           no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without
           examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded
           in writing:
           Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the
           purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause
           against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
           Provided also that—
            (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a
           party, except where the circumstances are beyond the
           control of that party;
           (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another
           Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
           (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or
           his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader
           though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-
           examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record
           the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it
           thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-
           examination of the witness, as the case may be.
           Explanation 1.—If sufficient evidence has been obtained
           to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed
           an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may
           be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for
           a remand.
           Explanation 2.—The terms on which an adjournment or
           postponement may be granted include, in appropriate
           cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the
           accused.”
1500                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


13. In a comprehensive decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu
    Nath Singh and Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 667 the legal position
    on the aspect of delay in the examination of the witnesses and the
    purport of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.(now Section 346 of the BNSS,
    2023) have been dealt with in extenso in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14
    and 18 respectively. The relevant paragraphs read thus:
          11. The first sub-section mandates on the trial courts that the
          proceedings shall be held expeditiously but the words “as
          expeditiously as possible” have provided some play at the
          joints and it is through such play that delay often creeps in
          the trials. Even so, the next limb of the sub-section sounded
          for a more vigorous stance to be adopted by the court at
          a further advanced stage of the trial. That stage is when
          examination of the witnesses begins. The legislature which
          diluted the vigour of the mandate contained in the initial limb
          of the sub-section by using the words “as expeditiously as
          possible” has chosen to make the requirement for the next
          stage (when examination of the witnesses has started) to be
          quite stern. Once the case reaches that stage the statutory
          command is that such examination “shall be continued from
          day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been
          examined”. The solitary exception to the said stringent rule
          is, if the court finds that adjournment “beyond the following
          day to be necessary” the same can be granted for which
          a condition is imposed on the court that reasons for the
          same should be recorded. Even this dilution has been
          taken away when witnesses are in attendance before the
          court. In such situation the court is not given any power
          to adjourn the case except in the extreme contingency for
          which the second proviso to sub-section (2) has imposed
          another condition, “provided further that when witnesses
          are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall
          be granted, without examining them, except for special
          reasons to be recorded in writing”.
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

          12. Thus, the legal position is that once examination of
          witnesses started, the court has to continue the trial from day
          to day until all witnesses in attendance have been examined
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          1501

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           (except those whom the party has given up). The court has
           to record reasons for deviating from the said course. Even
           that is forbidden when witnesses are present in court, as
           the requirement then is that the court has to examine them.
           Only if there are “special reasons”, which reasons should
           find a place in the order for adjournment, that alone can
           confer jurisdiction on the court to adjourn the case without
           examination of witnesses who are present in court.
           13. Now, we are distressed to note that it is almost a
           common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts
           flout the said command with impunity. Even when witnesses
           are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious
           reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are
           granted even in such situations on the mere asking for
           it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the
           convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear
           that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments
           on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate
           is not a “special reason” for bypassing the mandate of
           Section 309 of the Code.
           14. If any court finds that the day-to-day examination of
           witnesses mandated by the legislature cannot be complied
           with due to the non-cooperation of the accused or his
           counsel the court can adopt any of the measures indicated
           in the sub-section i.e. remanding the accused to custody or
           imposing cost on the party who wants such adjournments
           (the cost must be commensurate with the loss suffered by
           the witnesses, including the expenses to attend the court).
           Another option is, when the accused is absent and the
           witness is present to be examined, the court can cancel
           his bail, if he is on bail (unless an application is made on
           his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed
           to examine the witnesses present even in his absence
           provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that
           he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused
           in the case).
           18. It is no justification to glide on any alibi by blaming
           the infrastructure for skirting the legislative mandates
1502                                                         [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          embalmed in Section 309 of the Code. A judicious judicial
          officer who is committed to his work could manage
          with the existing infrastructure for complying with such
          legislative mandates. The precept in the old homily that
          a lazy workman always blames his tools, is the only
          answer to those indolent judicial officers who find fault
          with the defects in the system and the imperfections of
          the existing infrastructure for their tardiness in coping with
          such directions.”
14. In the aforesaid context, we may recapitulate a passage from Gurnaib
    Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2013) 7 SCC 108 as follows:
          “1 ...... We are compelled to proceed to reiterate the law
          and express our anguish pertaining to the manner in which
          the trial was conducted as it depicts a very disturbing
          scenario. As is demonstrable from the record, the trial
          was conducted in an extremely haphazard and piecemeal
          manner. Adjournments were granted on a mere asking. The
          cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred without
          recording any special reason and dates were given after a
          long gap. The mandate of the law and the views expressed
          by this Court from time to time appears to have been totally
          kept at bay. The learned trial Judge, as is perceptible,
          seems to have ostracised from his memory that a criminal
          trial has its own gravity and sanctity. In this regard, we may
          refer with profit to the pronouncement in Talab Haji Hussain
          v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar2 wherein it has been
          stated that an accused person by his conduct cannot put
          a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is the primary and paramount
          duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair
          trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly
          without any interruption or obstruction.”
15. Be it noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran
    Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2000) 5 SCC 668, was
    reproduced. “It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal
    case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up.
    It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one
    excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only is a
    witness threatened, he is abducted, he is maimed, he is done away
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                              1503

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

     with, or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning
     the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party
     to miscarriage of justice.”
16. In this regard, it is also fruitful to refer to the authority in Shambu
    Nath Singh (supra) wherein this Court deprecating the practice of
    a Sessions Court adjourning a case in spite of the presence of the
    witnesses willing to be examined fully, opined thus:
           “9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present
           in court he must be examined on that day. The court must
           know that most of the witnesses could attend the court
           only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own
           avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income.
           The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness
           may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the
           financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial
           courts that witnesses who are called through summons
           or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till
           evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case
           is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be
           reformed by the presiding officers of the trial courts and it
           can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer
           concerned has a commitment towards duty.”
17. This Court in Doongar Singh and ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported
    in (2017) INSC 1154 after referring to all the aforesaid decisions of
    this Court observed as under:
           “9. In spite of repeated directions of this Court, the situation
           appears to have remained unremedied.
           10. We hope that the Presiding Officers of the trial courts
           conducting criminal trials will be mindful of not giving such
           adjournments after commencement of the evidence in
           serious criminal cases.
           11. We are also of the view that it is necessary in the
           interest of justice that the eye-witnesses are examined
           by the prosecution at the earliest.
           12. It is also necessary that the statements of eye-
           witnesses are got recorded during investigation itself
1504                                                    [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports


         under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In view of amendment
         to Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Act No. 5 of 2009, such
         statement of witnesses should be got recorded by audio-
         video electronic means.
         13. To conclude: (i) The trial courts must carry out the
         mandate of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. as reiterated
         in judgments of this Court, inter alia, in State of U.P.
         versus Shambhu Nath Singh and Others (2001) 4 SCC
         667 , Mohd. Khalid versus State of W.B. (2002)7 SCC
         334 and Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab (2015)3
         SCC 220. (ii) The eye-witnesses must be examined by
         the prosecution as soon as possible. (iii) Statements
         of eye-witnesses should invariably be recorded under
         Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as per procedure prescribed
         thereunder.
         14. The High Courts may issue appropriate directions to
         the trial courts for compliance of the above.”
18. Thus, in Doongar Singh (supra) this Court in no uncertain terms
    had conveyed that the trial courts must carry out the mandate of
    Section 309 of the CrPC (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023) as
    reiterated in Shambhu Nath Singh (supra), Mohd. Khalid (supra)
    and Vinod Kumar (supra).
19. There are various other provisions in the Cr.P.C. (now BNSS, 2023)
    which ensure speedy trial and an early investigation:
         I. Under Section 157(1) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 176 of the
         BNSS, 2023) every officer in charge of a police station
         is bound to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts
         and circumstances of the case, and if necessary, to take
         measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.
         II. Section 167(2)(a) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 187 of the
         BNSS, 2023) provides that no magistrate shall authorise
         the detention of the accused person in custody for total
         period exceeding;
         (i) 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence
         punishable with death, life imprisonment for life or
         imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years;
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          1505

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           (ii) 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other
           offence, and on the expiration of such period as case may
           be the accused shall be released on bail.
           III. Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(1) of the
           BNSS, 2023) provides that every investigation under
           chapter XII shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
           IV. Section 173(1A) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 173 of the
           BNSS, 2023) provides that the investigation in relation
           to rape of a child may be completed within three months
           from the date on which the information was recorded by
           the officer in charge of the police station.
           V. Section 207 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 230 of the BNSS,
           2023) casts a duty on the magistrate that a copy of (i)
           the police report;(ii) FIR recorded under section 154 (iii)
           statement recorded under section 161(3) of all persons(iv)
           confession and statement recorded under section 164(v)
           any other document forwarded to the magistrate with the
           police report under section 173(5), shall be given to the
           accused free of coast.
           VI. Chapter XXI of Cr.P.C. provides provisions (from Section
           260 to 265, now Sections 283 to 287 of the BNSS, 2023)
           for summary trial in certain petty offences.
           VII. Chapter XXIA of Cr.P.C. provides provisions (from
           Section 265-A to 265-L, now Sections 289 to 303 of the
           BNSS, 2023) for Plea Bargaining. This chapter is applicable
           to other than an offence which punishment of death or
           of imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a term
           exceeding seven years has been provided under the law
           time being in force but does not apply where such offences
           affects the socio economic condition of the country or has
           been committed against a woman, or a child below age
           of fourteen years.
           VIII. Section 309(1) of Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the
           BNSS, 2023) provides that in every inquiry or trial the
           proceeding shall be continued from day to day until all
           the witnesses in attendance have been examined. It also
1506                                                       [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          provides that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence
          under section 376, or 376-A or 376-B or 376-C or 376-D
          of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the inquiry or trial shall,
          as far as possible be completed within a period of two
          months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.
          IX. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 514 of the BNSS,
          2023) Provides bar in taking cognizance after lapse of
          the period of limitation. Sub section (2) provides limitation
          period as (a) 6 months, if the offence is punishable with
          fine only (b) 1 year, if the offence is punishable with
          imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year (c) 3
          year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a
          term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
20. Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023)
    contains a mandatory provision that in every inquiry or trial, the
    proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in
    particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the
    same shall be continued from day to day basis until all the witnesses
    in attendance have been examined unless the Court finds the
    adjournment of the case beyond the following day to be necessary
    for reasons to be recorded. The emphasis of this Section cannot
    be overlooked and must not be overlooked by any Judicial Officer
    who tries a criminal case, much less by the higher officers, like the
    Sessions Judges presiding over the Sessions Court, where serious
    offences are being tried day in and day out.
21. It is true that the court has the discretion to defer the cross-
    examination. But we do not approve the practice prevailing in the trial
    courts across the country that the examination-in-chief of a particular
    witness is recorded in a particular month and his cross-examination
    would follow in particular subsequent month. The legal position is
    that once the examination of witnesses starts the court concerned
    must continue the trial from day to day until all the witnesses in
    attendance have been examined (except those whom the public
    prosecutor has given up). We are at pains to note that it is almost
    a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout
    the said mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present,
    cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy
    grounds. The legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment
    on flimsy grounds.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                           1507

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

22. In Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. reported in 2002 (7) SCC 334, a
    three Judge Bench of this Court did not approve the deferment of
    the cross-examination of the witness for a long time and, deprecating
    the said practice, it observed as follows:
           “Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance
           that the accused persons get a time to get over the
           witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact
           remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section
           309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his
           examination in chief is over, unless compelling reasons
           are there, the trial court should not adjourn the matter on
           the mere asking.”
23. In Akil alias Javed v. State of Delhi reported in 2012 (11) SCALE 709,
    this Court, after surveying the earlier pronouncements, has stressed
    on the compliance of the procedure and expressed its anguish that
    the Trial Courts are not strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed
    under the provisions contained in Section 231 along with Section
    309 of the Cr.P.C. respectively and further emphasised that such
    adherence can ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the
    possibility of any maneuvering taking place by granting undue long
    adjournment for mere asking.
24. In Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,
    Patna reported in (1980) 1 SCC 81, this Court held that an expeditious
    trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life
    and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
25. In A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225, this
    Court declared that speedy trial is not only the right of the accused
    but is also in public interest and that the right to speedy trial flowing
    from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of
    investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
26. In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1983) 2 SCC 344,
    this Court sounded the following note of caution against delay of
    criminal trials:
           “16... The essence of the matter is that all procedure, no
           matter what the stage, must be fair, just and reasonable...
           Article 21 stands like a sentinel over human misery... It
1508                                                            [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


           reverberates through all stages the trial, the sentence, the
           incarceration and finally, the execution of the sentence.”
27. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Javed Ahmed
    Abdul Hamid Pawala v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1985) 1
    SCC 275 and Triveni Ben v. State of Gujarat reported in (1989) 1 SCC
    678. Even in cases where the accused had been enlarged on bail the
    right to a speedy trial was held to be a part of the fundamental right
    under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decisions of this Court in
    Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 1994 Supp.(3)
    SCC 97 and Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported
    in (2002) 1 SCC 149 may be referred to in this regard.
28. It is in the light of the settled legal position that it is no longer possible
    to question the legitimacy of the right to speedy trial as a part of
    the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The essence
    of Article 21 of the 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 the trial.
29. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration) reported
    in AIR 1984 SC 618, it was held that it is most expedient that the
    trial before the Court of Session should proceed and be dealt with
    continuously from its inception to its finish. Not only will it result in
    expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and
    mischief. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the
    defence that the trial proceeds from day to day. It is necessary to
    realise that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Once the
    trial commences, except for a very pressing reason which makes
    an adjournment inevitable, it must proceed de die in diem until the
    trial is concluded.
30. In Gurnaib Singh (supra) this Court observed in para 34 as under:
           “We have expressed our anguish, agony and concern
           about the manner in which the trial has been conducted.
           We hope and trust that the trial courts shall keep in mind
           the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by
           this Court and not be guided by their own thinking or
           should not become mute spectators when a trial is being
           conducted by allowing the control to the counsel for the
           parties. They have their roles to perform. They are required
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         1509

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           to monitor. They cannot abandon their responsibility. It
           should be borne in mind that the whole dispensation of
           criminal justice system at the ground level rests on how
           a trial is conducted. It needs no special emphasis to state
           that dispensation of criminal justice system is not only a
           concern of the Bench but has to be the concern of the
           Bar. The administration of justice reflects its purity when
           the Bench and the Bar perform their duties with utmost
           sincerity. An advocate cannot afford to bring any kind
           of disrespect to fairness of trial by taking recourse to
           subterfuges for procrastinating the same.”
31. The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the constitution of
    India. The first written articulation of the right to speedy trial appeared
    in 1215 in the Magna Carta: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny
    or defer to any man either justice or right.” Article 21 of the Indian
    constitution declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life
    or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.”
    Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Babu Singh v. State of U.P. reported
    in AIR 1978 SC 527 remarked, “Our justice system even in grave
    cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to “fair trial”
    whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of
    social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the
    criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable
    time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of
    criminal proceedings.” In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India
    reported in (1986) 3 SCR 562, this Court has held that the right to
    speedy trial is a fundamental right. Further it was stated by this
    Court that the consequence of violation of the fundamental right to
    speedy trial would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to
    be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of fundamental right.
32. Section 309 has been inserted in the Cr.P.C. keeping in view this
    constitutional mandate of speedy trial.
33. In the decision reported in Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi
    Administration) reported in (1984) 1 SCC 722, this Court in paras 2
    and 3 respectively has held as under:
           “2. We think it is an entirely wholesome practice for the
           trial to go on from day to day. It is most expedient that
           the trial before the Court of Session should proceed and
1510                                                           [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish.
          Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the
          elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It will be in the
          interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the
          trial proceeds from day to day. It is necessary to realise
          that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal. Before
          commencing a trial, a Sessions Judge must satisfy himself
          that all necessary evidence is available. If it is not, he may
          postpone the case, but only on the strongest possible
          ground and for the shortest possible period. Once the trial
          commences, he should, except for a very pressing reason
          which makes an adjournment inevitable, proceed de die
          in diem until the trial is concluded.
          3. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be
          experienced by the Petitioner. It is stated that his Advocate
          is finding it difficult to attend the court from day to day.
          It is the duty of every Advocate, who accepts the brief in
          a criminal case to attend the trial from day to day. We
          cannot overstress the duty of the Advocate to attend to
          the trial from day to day. Having accepted the brief, he
          will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he
          so fails to attend. The criminal miscellaneous petition is,
          therefore, dismissed.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

34. Again, in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) SCALE
    542, this Court expressed the agony and anguish by observing as
    under:
          “41. ....Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by
          the counsel, even though the witness is present in court,
          contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after
          the examination in chief of a witness is over, adjournment
          is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature
          is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special
          reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same
          is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the
          instant case the cross- examination has taken place after
          a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                              1511

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of
           tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there
           has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court
           while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate
           of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing
           in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the
           basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for
           his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it
           cannot be countenanced. The Court has a sacred duty to
           see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments
           are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation
           of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is
           legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The
           trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of
           the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request
           of the counsel to grant adjournment for nonacceptable
           reasons. In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness
           for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is
           imperative if the examination in chief is over, the cross-
           examination should be completed on the same day. If the
           examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial
           can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It
           is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should
           be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the
           concept of proper and fair trial. The duty of the court is to
           see that not only the interest of the accused as per law
           is protected but also the societal and collective interest
           is safeguarded. It is distressing to note that despite
           series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting
           adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall
           we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort.
           Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the
           judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the
           High Courts for circulating the same among the learned
           trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating
           to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-
           examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure
           of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an
           apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer
1512                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed
          to be lonely; a destitute.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

35. The practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly
    in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about thirty years
    ago has been given a complete go-by. We sincerely believe that it
    is high time that the courts revert to that practice. For the purpose
    of reverting to the old practice, it is necessary to understand the
    current social, political and administrative scenario including the way
    the Police are functioning. All the High Courts need to constitute a
    Committee to discuss this issue very seriously for the benefit of their
    respective district judiciaries.
36. One of the significant factors contributing to delays in the justice
    system is the discretionary practice of noncontinuous criminal trials,
    where evidence is heard by the court in piecemeal fashion, with
    cases effectively spread out over the course of many months or
    even years. While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage
    of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for
    the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous
    trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far
    outweigh the perceived benefits.

     Necessity for the High Courts to issue a Circular
37. The Chief Justices of the High Courts may direct their administrative
    side to issue a circular to the respective district judiciaries stating
    as under:
          [1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held
          expeditiously.
          [2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such
          examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the
          witnesses in the attendance have been examined except
          for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
          [3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the
          Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted
          without examining them, except for special reasons to be
          recorded in writing.
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                          1513

                    The Central Bureau of Investigation v.
                     Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali

           [4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the
           convenience of the advocate concerned except on very
           exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and
           similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo. Be
           it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is
           not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the
           immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.
           [5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel,
           the following shall be kept in mind:
                a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the
                Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation
                is in active collusion with the accused to delay the
                trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded
                in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the
                accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot
                be cancelled.
                b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with
                lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with
                the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded,
                appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a
                date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.
                c. The Court may also in appropriate cases impose
                cost on the accused commensurate with the loss
                suffered by the witness including the expenses to
                attend the court.
                d. In case when the accused is absent and the
                witness is present for examination, in that case the
                Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail.
                (Unless an application is made on his behalf seeking
                permission for his counsel to proceed to examine
                the witness present even in his absence, provided
                the accused gives an undertaking in writing that, he
                would not dispute, his identity as a particular accused
                in the case.)
           [6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the
           system for framing a schedule of constructive working
1514                                                        [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


             days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in
             advance, after ascertaining the convenience of counsel
             on both sides.
             [7] The summons or process could be handed over to the
             Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to cause them
             to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule fixed by
             the Court.
     This order may be made part of the circular as an annexure.
38. We are informed that the further cross-examination of the victim is
    now preponed to 24-10-2025.
39. The Public Prosecutor shall ensure that the victim remains present
    for the further cross-examination.
40. Once the oral evidence of the victim is completed, the Trial Court
    should make all possible endeavour to see that the other witnesses
    are examined at the earliest and the trial is completed with judgment
    by 31-12-2025.
41. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
42. It is needless to clarify that the respondent - accused is duty bound
    to comply with all the conditions imposed in the bail order passed by
    the High Court and fully cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial.
43. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
44. The Registry shall forward one copy each of this order to all the
    High Courts at the earliest.

     Result of the case: Petition disposed of.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan