Chhattisgarh High Court Directs Trial Courts to Avoid Unnecessary Adjournments and Fix Short Dates for Recording Evidence
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed all trial courts in the state to avoid granting long and unnecessary adjournments, emphasizing the need to fix shorter, continuous dates for recording evidence—particularly in cases where the accused remains in custody.
A bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that trial courts often grant repeated and lengthy adjournments even when the accused is incarcerated. The Court noted that such delays not only prolong judicial proceedings but also infringe upon the constitutional right to a speedy trial guaranteed to every individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court instructed subordinate courts to ensure that adjournments are granted only for valid reasons and that evidence is recorded on short, regular intervals. It stressed that trial courts must take active measures to expedite proceedings in all criminal cases.
Background of the Case
The observation came while hearing a bail application filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The applicant had been in judicial custody since November 2024, after authorities seized approximately 33.7 kilograms of ganja — a quantity categorized as “commercial” under the law.
When the bail plea was considered, the Court noted that out of 14 witnesses, only three had been examined, and all had turned hostile. The next date for evidence was set nearly a year later, in January 2026, which the Court found to be an unjustified delay.
The applicant’s counsel argued that the prolonged timeline violated the accused’s right to a speedy trial. Although the Court declined to grant bail due to the commercial quantity of the contraband, it issued directions to the trial court to advance the dates of hearing and ensure that the trial is concluded within four months from the date the order is received.
Key Takeaway
The judgment reiterates the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent procedural delays and underscores that courts must balance the interests of justice with the accused’s constitutional rights. It sends a clear message to trial courts to manage their schedules efficiently and to prioritize timely dispensation of justice.
