New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to set a specific timeline for completing the trial in the Shraddha Walkar murder case against accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala, noting that proceedings in the case are already being conducted on a day-to-day basis. The court was hearing a petition filed by Walkar's brother seeking directions for an early conclusion of the trial. Justice Madhu Jain observed that the trial court was already making efforts to complete the proceedings as quickly as possible and therefore no additional directions were required at this stage. The petition had sought the High Court's intervention to ensure that the trial, which has remained under close public attention, reaches its conclusion without unnecessary delay.

During the hearing, Justice Jain took note of the manner in which proceedings were being conducted before the trial court. The High Court observed that the lower court was making “every endeavour” to conclude the matter at the earliest and that hearings were already taking place on a daily basis. In view of this, the court found no reason to impose a separate deadline. “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,” Justice Jain said. The observation effectively means that the existing pace of proceedings will continue without a High Court-mandated date by which the trial must be completed.

The petition had been moved by Shraddha Walkar's brother with the objective of securing an early conclusion to the proceedings against Aaftab Amin Poonawala. However, the High Court's order makes clear that it is satisfied, for now, with the steps being taken by the trial court. Rather than setting a fixed deadline, Justice Jain allowed the day-to-day trial process to continue. The material provided does not specify how many witnesses have been examined so far, how much evidence remains to be recorded or when the trial court is expected to deliver its final decision. With the High Court declining to issue further directions, the focus will remain on the ongoing proceedings before the trial court and its efforts to bring the case to a conclusion at the earliest possible stage.