Shraddha Walker trial orders show court pushed back against Aaftab's delay tactics
A recent Delhi court order postponing proceedings in the Shraddha Walker murder trial by a day after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sought permission to appear
A recent Delhi court order postponing proceedings in the Shraddha Walker murder trial by a day after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sought permission to appear for his MA Sociology examination triggered a debate over whether the case was being repeatedly delayed at the accused's request. Questions were raised over whether the court had routinely accommodated adjournments sought by Poonawala on grounds ranging from medical appointments to personal reasons, thereby slowing down the trial in the high-profile murder case. Read Full Story However, a review of court orders accessed by India Today presents a different picture. Records since the commencement of the trial show that the court, which has seen proceedings before three judges so far, has consistently stressed the need for a faster trial, repeatedly criticised the defence for delaying tactics and fixed consecutive hearing dates to ensure uninterrupted recording of evidence. Court orders indicate that judges warned the defence against seeking unwarranted adjournments on multiple occasions, granted "last opportunities" for cross-examination several times and, in more than one order, observed that the defence appeared to be stalling the proceedings. The trial court also rejected a plea by the accused seeking only two hearing dates per month, noting that the prosecution had cited more than 212 witnesses and that several witnesses were travelling from outside Delhi to depose in the case. Subsequent orders show the court moving towards block calendars and day-to-day hearings to speed up the trial. Shraddha Walkar, 27, was strangled in a rented apartment in Delhi's Mehrauli in May 2022, by her live-in partner, Aaftab Amin Poonawala, following a heated argument. He then chopped up the woman's body into dozens of pieces, stored them in a refrigerator and, over the next months, went around disposing of them in various locations.
On May 29, Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, who has been hearing the matter since August 2025, directed that witness testimonies be recorded on a day-to-day basis. Observing that the progress of the trial had become "tardy", the court put Aaftab on notice and said that since his lawyer had submitted that he could not attend hearings on a day-to-day basis, the accused must make appropriate arrangements to ensure he was duly represented by an advocate. COURT FLAGGED DELAY TACTICS REPEATEDLY The trial court records show that concerns over delays were raised on at least seven occasions. In February 2024, the court observed that it appeared Aaftab's counsel was trying to stall the proceedings. Judge Manisha Khurana made the observation after a proxy counsel sought more time on the ground that the main counsel was unavailable despite dates having been fixed according to the defence's convenience. In May 2024, the court again noted that the defence counsel was "deliberately trying to stall the proceedings" and pointed out that dates had been specially fixed in accordance with the counsel's case diary despite the legal requirement that criminal trials proceed on a day-to-day basis. In July 2024, while rejecting Aaftab's plea to restrict hearings to two dates every month, the court observed that the application appeared to be "only a tool to protract and delay the trial". It also noted that defence counsel had failed to appear on dates fixed as per his convenience. In August 2024, the court remarked that Aaftab appeared to be deliberately delaying the cross-examination of witnesses and closed the opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses. In December 2025, the court noted that it was the second instance in the same month when the non-availability of Aaftab's lawyer had been cited.
The BriefWire