Delhi Police Opposes Delay in Trial Amid Ongoing Investigation in High-Profile Case

Delhi Police opposed a plea from accused parties seeking to defer trial arguments until the completion of an ongoing investigation, asserting the right to conduct further investigations. Despite numerous filings over 42 months, the defense argues unfinished probes and potential delays compromise the trial's fairness.

Delhi Police on Thursday resisted a plea by the accused seeking a postponement of arguments on charges until the investigation is fully complete. They presented their case in light of the ongoing inquiry and forthcoming supplementary charge sheets, emphasizing that the right to further investigate is protected by the Delhi High Court.

Special Judge Sameer Bajpai heard Delhi Police's objections, scheduling the matter for rebuttal arguments by the defense counsel on August 8. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad asserted that the request for a delay has no legal basis. 'The trial, deferred since September 11, 2023, risks further delays due to these applications,' Prasad argued.

Prosecutors referenced judgments from both the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, stating that once a chargesheet is lodged per Section 173 of the CrPC, proceedings need not wait for supplementary filings. The prosecution contended that the defense's applications aim to protract the trial, citing delays since an FIR was lodged on March 6, 2020, and multiple charge sheets filed since.

Defense counsel for Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita argued that four years since the FIR, Delhi Police's investigation continues. 'The investigation must be complete before charges are framed,' argued Advocate Adit S Pujari. He insisted the police should get permission for further probes, pointing out the inherent contradiction in their stance across different cases.

The case revolves around an alleged larger conspiracy, with the defense demanding the prosecution clarify its position before arguments proceed. The Counsel cited the incomplete status of the reported criminal conspiracy as a point of contention, arguing it’s crucial for a fair trial.

The court initially directed for daily hearings on charges.