BREAKING| Shraddha Walkar Murder Case: Delhi Court Rejects Plea To Move Aaftab Poonawala Away From Defence Counsel

The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, during the recording of the testimony of prosecution witness PW-148, Inspector Sandeep Kumar.

The complainant's counsel, Advocate Seema Khushwaha, objected to Poonawala sitting adjacent to the advocates' desk, contending that he should not be permitted to do so.

Rejecting the objection, the court noted that a similar protest had earlier been raised and declined. It observed that Poonawala had consistently been permitted to sit behind or in close proximity to his defence counsel for ease of communication during trial.

"The Court has often permitted the accused, Aaftab to sit closely along with his police escort, behind or in close proximity to the defence counsel for ease of communication, which is in the vicinity of the Advocates' Desk."

The court further observed that requiring the accused to sit in a distant corner of the courtroom would unnecessarily hamper communication between him and his counsel during the examination of prosecution witnesses.

Referring to Rule 14 of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, introduced through a notification dated May 6, 2009, the court reproduced the provision which states: "The accused in a criminal trial shall be permitted to sit down during the trial, unless it becomes necessary for the accused to stand up for any specific purpose such as identification of accused or otherwise."

Emphasising that constitutional protections apply irrespective of the nature of the allegations, the court observed: "Be it accused, no matter for how grievous and heinous offence, he also has rights and the Apex Court has repeatedly held that neither accused can be denied a proper seating in the courtroom, nor a treatment which may reek of disgust, vengeance."

The court further underscored that the presumption of innocence remains a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence and that an accused's right to a fair trial necessarily encompasses the right to effectively communicate with counsel.

"Above all the hallmarks of criminal jurisprudence of our country is the presumption of innocence, and an accused also has a right to fair trial. The right to fair trial inherently includes right and access to counsel."

It added that Article 22(1) of the Constitution, along with provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, protects an accused's right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice, observing: "This may at times require the accused sitting close enough to communicate to their counsel."

Accordingly, the court held that the request made on behalf of the complainant was "unwarranted and unreasonable" and declined it.

During the proceedings, the court also recorded the further examination-in-chief of PW-148 pursuant to the filing of the second supplementary chargesheet, while deferring his cross-examination.

Separately, the prosecution moved an application seeking permission to record the evidence of officials from WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC, Gmail and Bumble through video conferencing under the Delhi High Court's Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025. The defence sought time to file its reply, which the court granted.

The application has been listed for arguments on July 24 at 2PM.

Days after a Delhi court had deferred the hearing in the 2022 Shraddha Walkar murder case after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sought time to appear for his IGNOU examination, Shraddha's friend Rajat Shukla questioned the delay in the trial, saying justice had been denied to the victim's family.

Background of the Case