MUMBAI, July 12 -- A special court has refused the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) request to summon fresh bank records and examine bank officials in the Sheena Bora murder trial, ruling that it cannot allow the agency a second chance to correct shortcomings in its evidence after years of investigation and trial. The order is significant as the high-profile murder trial, pending since 2015, is in its final stages after the examination of 146 prosecution witnesses. The prosecution, represented by Special Public Prosecutor CJ Nandode, had sought directions to four banks to produce fresh account statements of approver Shyamvar Rai and deceased Sheena Bora along with mandatory certificates required to make the records admissible as evidence. It also sought permission to examine the concerned branch managers. The CBI admitted that although the bank statements had already been placed before the court through witnesses, they were submitted without the legally required certificates. As a result, the documents were only marked as articles and not formally admitted as evidence. Opposing the plea, advocates Ranjeet Sangle, appearing for Indrani Mukerjea, and Harshman Chavan, representing Sanjeev Khanna, argued that the prosecution was trying to correct defects in its case after the bank officials had already been examined and cross-examined. The defence contended that this omission had already been highlighted during cross-examination and that the CBI had failed to explain why it did not obtain the required certificates despite having sufficient time during the investigation and trial. Allowing fresh documents and witnesses now, they argued, would unfairly strengthen the prosecution's case and further delay a trial that has been pending for over a decade. Rejecting the application on Friday, special judge Dr JP Darekar observed that the prosecution had "ample time during investigation to collect relevant certificates" required for admitting the electronic records but failed to do so. The court noted that the bank witnesses had already been examined and that the prosecution neither challenged earlier orders that treated the documents only as articles nor attempted to rectify the defect at the appropriate stage. The judge said the court's power to summon additional documents and witnesses must be exercised cautiously and not routinely. The prosecution, the court held, had failed to show diligence in obtaining the mandatory certificates or explain why they were not collected along with the bank statements. The order said allowing the application would effectively reopen the evidence stage and prolong the trial, which is not permitted under law. The court also observed that reopening evidence at this stage would hamper a fair trial, especially in a case involving a large number of witnesses....