Advocate Devarsh Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under Ghariya, the trial record had run into 3,500 pages. The counsel also submitted that Ghariya had made an open statement before the trial court that there was no requirement of examining more than 24 additional witnesses and the outer limit for concluding the trial was August 22.

The State informed the court that advocate Atul Vyas, who had been appointed in place of Ghariya, had declined to take up the assignment due to personal reasons.

Expressing concern over the consequences of another change in prosecution, the bench observed that replacing Ghariya at this stage would only prolong the trial. The court orally remarked, “In fact, by changing the Special Public Prosecutor, you are delaying the trial instead of expediting it. The record runs into 3,500 pages. Mr Vyas, if he comes, will also require some time to understand the case. This person (Ghariya) has already conducted the trial for the last four years and has substantially examined the material witnesses. It is not even in the interest of the State…”

The court noted that Ghariya had originally been appointed as Special Public Prosecutor in 2021 and was reappointed pursuant to a High Court order in 2024, and “only the material witnesses, to the extent of about 25, remain to be examined.”

It was also argued that the trial had failed to make substantial progress after Ghariya’s removal despite timelines fixed by higher courts. The State placed on record a communication issued by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, seeking the District Government Pleaders’ opinion on the victim family’s request to continue Ghariya as Special Public Prosecutor.

In an oral order, the court said, “Considering the submissions, let this matter be listed on next Monday. Meanwhile, an appropriate decision shall be taken by the State with regard to the continuation of the Special Public Prosecutor.”

The court also orally cautioned the state against further delay. “Next week, if you are not coming with a decision, then an appropriate order will be passed. Just convey this to your officers,” the court said.

Salim Nisar has contended that the unexplained removal of Ghariya is arbitrary and prejudicial to the prosecution, particularly when the trial had reached an advanced stage after examination of more than 60 witnesses. The petition also relies on the Supreme Court’s March 2024 direction that key prosecution witnesses be examined expeditiously, failing which the accused could seek fresh bail, as well as a Gujarat High Court order directing completion of the trial within one year.

The case relates to the alleged custodial death of 65-year-old Telangana migrant worker Shaikh Babu Nisar, who allegedly disappeared after being picked up by Vadodara’s Fatehgunj police in December 2019. The Gujarat CID later chargesheeted eight police personnel for offences including murder and destruction of evidence. Nisar’s body has never been recovered.