Patna High Court Slams Lawyers Accused In 1994 Murder Case For Delay Tactics | Refuses To Quash Bail Conditions, Upholds Trial Court’s Authority
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, has dismissed petitions seeking quashing of trial court orders in long-pending criminal proceedings arising from a 1994 incident. The court directed that a related cross-case be transferred to the same court for joint trial in accordance with established Supreme Court guidelines. The court further held that there was no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders of the trial court, which had cancelled bail bonds, taken one petitioner into custody, and issued a non-bailable warrant against another, while later granting provisional bail with certain regulatory conditions. Stating that the objective was to uphold the majesty of law and secure a speedy trial, the High Court found the conditions imposed to be regulatory in nature and not indicative of bias.
The petitions arose from two criminal miscellaneous cases seeking quashing of trial court orders dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999 (Registration No. 3038 of 2014) and Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2010 (Registration No. 3037 of 2014). Both trials stemmed from Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994, registered for offences initially under Section 307 IPC along with other provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act, later converted to Section 302 IPC. The case originated as a counter to Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994, lodged by the petitioners' side.
The petitioners, both practising advocates at the District Civil Court, Darbhanga, had applied for exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 20.06.2025, the trial court rejected these applications. The court cancelled the bail bond of one petitioner, who was present in court, remanded him to custody, and issued a non-bailable warrant against the other. The trial court recorded that the accused had engaged in conduct delaying the trial, including filing repeated applications under Section 317, and, on the date in question, appearing in another case before the same court shortly after seeking exemption in his own case.
In Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999, the court observed that despite earlier High Court directions in 2015 to conclude the matter expeditiously—preferably within six months—the case had been repeatedly delayed. The court noted alleged manipulation of court records, unbecoming behaviour in court, and refusal to comply with court directions. The bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and he was taken into custody.
On 24.06.2025, the trial court granted this petitioner provisional bail for one month, imposing conditions including physical presence on hearing dates, cooperation in trial, refraining from influencing witnesses or provoking hindrance within court premises, avoiding objectionable words or conduct detrimental to the administration of justice, and permitting cancellation of bail upon violation.
In Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2010, the sole accused petitioner faced similar rejection of his Section 317 application, cancellation of bail bond, and issuance of a non-bailable warrant. The trial court cited repeated delays, influence in the legal community, and deliberate non-cooperation, noting that the accused was in the court premises but refused to attend his trial.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court acted with bias due to their status as practising advocates and imposed onerous bail conditions. It was contended that the trial court’s rejection of Section 317 applications was inconsistent with its acceptance of similar applications from co-accused on the same day, and that personal attendance could have been secured through less severe measures. Reliance was placed on precedents including Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., State of M.P. v. Mishrilal, Avtar Singh v. State of M.P., Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal v. State of Bihar, and S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., addressing trial of cross-cases together, dispensation of personal attendance, and principles on judicial bias.
The State opposed the petitions, submitting that the accused had deliberately evaded trial for decades, exploiting legal procedures to cause delay, and that custodial intervention was necessary to secure attendance in a murder trial where statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be recorded in person. The State contended that the impugned orders were interim in nature, the conditions regulatory, and any modification should be sought before the trial court.
The court recorded that the petitioners' conduct demonstrated a perception of being "above the law" and undermined the authority of the trial court. It observed: "The conduct of petitioner is just a tip of ice berg that can be easily understood from the fact that in the case where he is accused a petition under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., was filed, whereas in another case, after a one hour, he appeared before the court in his professional capacity." The court further noted: "It is pertinent to note that even the junior counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner addressed the court by stating that 'Boss is not appearing today' which further reflects the deliberate non-cooperative attitude."
On the allegation of bias, the court stated: "This Court with available material failed to gather any biased approach of the learned trial court towards petitioners." Addressing the bail conditions, the court recorded: "Terms and conditions as imposed appears regulatory in nature to maintain the decorum of the Court."
The High Court reiterated that both case and counter-case must be tried together, quoting Supreme Court precedent: "The cross-cases should be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved... to avoid the conflicting judgments over the same incident."
On Section 317 Cr.P.C., the court cited its earlier decision in Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal, noting that while a magistrate may cancel bail and issue warrants upon failure to appear, a reasonable opportunity must first be given if personal attendance had previously been dispensed with. In the present matter, the court accepted that the trial court acted to ensure expeditious proceedings in a case pending since 1994.
The court held: "Accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders as passed by learned trial court, accordingly the present quashing petitions stand dismissed being devoid of any merit." The court directed that the cross-case, Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994, presently in Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1998 before the Additional Sessions Judge VII, Darbhanga/or in any other court, be transferred to the court of Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, for joint trial with the present case is pending and to proceed accordingly. It ordered: "Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned trial court forthwith." Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of in view of the judgment.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Shama Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Nikhil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate; Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate; Ms. Suman Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP; Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP.
Case Title: Amber Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar & Anr. with Kausar Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43259 of 2025 with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43260 of 2025
Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha
