Court’s Legal Analysis: Stay on Trial Lifted and Trial Ordered to Proceed Expeditiously

In a significant legal ruling, the court focused on analyzing the trial proceedings while lifting the stay and directing an expeditious resolution to a case concerning the parties. The court refrained from making any premature observations to maintain the trial’s integrity. Stay tuned to understand the in-depth legal analysis provided by the court in this complex legal matter.


  • The petitioner, who was on bail, sought relaxation of the bail condition to travel to the USA.
  • The petitioner approached the Trial Court for permission to leave the State of Telangana or the country.
  • The bail condition included a requirement for prior permission from the Court before leaving the state or country.
  • The husband approached the High Court seeking relaxation of bail conditions to travel to the USA.
  • The High Court granted the relaxation of bail conditions with the requirement of a bank guarantee.
  • The wife filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s order.
  • The Special Leave Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court by consent of parties.
  • The Trial Court dismissed a Contempt Petition filed by the husband.
  • The wife filed a petition in the High Court to recall witnesses PWs 1 to 4, leading to a stay of further proceedings.
  • The Stay of trial got extended due to the Assistant Public Prosecutor’s petition to reopen evidence and recall witnesses.
  • Aggrieved by the stay granted by the High Court, the husband and his parents filed the present Special Leave Petition.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of Alleged Emission Cheating Scandal


  • The Trial Court dismissed the Application filed by the Prosecutor on 23.01.2020 to recall PW-1 to PW-4 and issue summons to other persons.
  • The Trial Court believed the petition was an attempt to delay proceedings and mentioned that PW-1 to PW-4 were supposed to speak about their grievances at length during their initial examination.
  • The High Court granted a stay on 07.02.2020 despite an order for the proceedings’ disposal within two months issued on 16.07.2019.
  • The application for recalling PW-1 to PW-4 was based on a supplementary charge-sheet, which the Trial Court had already considered.
  • The delay in proceedings was highlighted, considering the initial order to conclude the trial within two months.
  • The court refrains from making any observation regarding a matter to avoid prejudicing the trial outcome.
  • Efforts to violate a court order made by consent are frowned upon and should be discouraged.

Also Read: Authority of University Syndicate in Affiliation Matters


  • The Special Leave Petition is allowed and the order of stay granted by the High Court is set aside.
  • Parties are restrained from filing any civil or criminal cases against each other or their respective Advocates during the trial.
  • All other criminal cases between the parties in any other courts shall stand disposed of without any orders.
  • The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the criminal case expeditiously and aim to dispose of the matter within two months.
  • The order from a previous Court hearing directs the Trial in the case to be concluded within two months from the appearance of the parties.
  • The Contempt Petition is closed without delving into the rival contentions.

Also Read: Clarification on Winding Up Proceedings Transfer to NCLT


Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000444 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *