A trial need not be stayed pending investigation against other accused absent demonstrated prejudice.

The petitioners, accused nos. 24 and 25 in Crime No. 1548/2018, sought to stay the trial of accused nos. 1–16 in S.C. No. 1068/2018 until investigation concerning accused nos. 17–26 was completed and a final report filed against them.

The petitioners had been arrested in 2018, and a prior order of the High Court had directed that the investigation be expedited, but it remained incomplete.

They argued that evidence in the pending trial—including evidence relating to an autorickshaw allegedly used by the principal accused—could prejudice their later trial and require witnesses to be recalled.

They sought both completion of the investigation within six months and suspension of the Sessions Case.

The State and the victim’s mother opposed a stay, relying on directions to conclude the Sessions Case within a specified period and its scheduled trial dates.

Whether the trial of accused nos. 1–16 should be stayed until investigation and filing of a final report against the petitioners and other remaining accused.

Whether the petitioners had established prejudice warranting interference with the scheduled trial, or a basis for the requested time-bound completion of the investigation.

Section 273 Cr.P.C. requires evidence in a criminal trial to be recorded in the presence of the accused or their pleader; evidence recorded in a separate trial ordinarily cannot be used to determine another accused’s culpability.

The exceptions identified by the Court were Section 299 Cr.P.C. (recording evidence in specified circumstances, including the accused’s abscondence and absence of an immediate prospect of arrest) and Section 33 of the Evidence Act (use of prior testimony in specified circumstances, subject to statutory conditions, including the opportunity to cross-examine).

The judgment also referred to the corresponding provisions under the BNSS and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

In A.T. Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, (2022) 14 SCC 392, the Supreme Court held that evidence in a criminal trial is confined to the accused tried on that evidence, subject to statutory exceptions.

Essar Teleholdings Ltd. v. CBI, (2015) 10 SCC 562, was relied on for the proposition that a joint trial is not obligatory, particularly where it would prolong proceedings or cause prejudice.

The Court also noted the victim’s right to a speedy trial.

The Court found that the petitioners had not demonstrated specific prejudice from the trial of accused nos. 1–16.

The statutory conditions for using evidence recorded in their absence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. were not present, and the conditions for admitting prior testimony under Section 33 of the Evidence Act were likewise unmet.

The allegations against the petitioners concerned conspiracy to facilitate the principal accused’s escape and harbouring offenders, while the pending trial concerned the accused alleged to have directly committed the murder and caused injuries; the roles and evidence were therefore materially distinguishable.

A stay would also disrupt the trial schedule set pursuant to earlier court directions, while a joint trial would prolong proceedings.

It dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.

Thus, neither the requested stay nor the requested time-bound direction to complete the investigation was granted.