![\"Shraddha](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132762911,imgsize-1201992,width-400,height-225,resizemode-75\/the-delhi-high-court-has-opted-not-to-impose-a-timeline-for-the-trial-of-aaftab-poonawala.jpg\" "\\"The")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court<\/a> on Friday declined to set a deadline for concluding the trial in the sensational Shraddha Walkar murder case, observing that proceedings against accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala were already being conducted on a day-to-day basis.The court, however, asked the ministries of home affairs and external affairs to facilitate the examination of overseas witnesses whenever required by the trial court.Justice Madhu Jain said, “It is clear that the trial court is making every endeavour to conclude the trial as soon as possible. No further directions are required as the trial is going on a day to day basis,” while hearing a petition filed by Walkar’s brother.Walkar, who was in a live-in relationship with Poonawala, was allegedly strangled by him on May 18, 2022.According to the 6,629-page chargesheet filed by Delhi Police<\/a>, Poonawala allegedly dismembered Walkar’s body, stored the body parts in a refrigerator and disposed of them at secluded locations across Delhi over several days to evade arrest.The body parts were later recovered.Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the trial was progressing at a slow pace and, at the current rate, was unlikely to conclude in the coming years.Senior advocate Amit Prasad, appearing for Delhi Police, informed the court that the trial court was already hearing the matter on a day-to-day basis, except on Saturdays and Sundays.He said testimonies of 157 out of more than 200 witnesses had already been completed.On the senior advocate’s request, the high court asked the ministries of home affairs and external affairs to expeditiously facilitate the examination of overseas witnesses whenever required by the trial court.The court thereafter disposed of the petition.In his plea, petitioner Shreejay Vijay Walkar contended that the criminal trial had remained pending for an inordinately long period without any justifiable reason.He argued that such delay frustrated the administration of criminal justice and defeated the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.(With PTI inputs)<\/div>\n