Patna High Court Criticizes Lawyers Booked In 1994 Murder Case For Undermining Trial Court's Authority, Denies Relief

The Patna High Court rejected pleas by two Dharbhanga lawyers booked in a 1994 murder case who had challenged trial court's dismissal of their application seeking exemption from personal appearance in the case. 

This, after the high court noted that one of them had continued to appear before the trial court in a separate case in a professional capacity. The high court thus remarked that the lawyers had "undermined the authority and sanctity of the judicial process". 

The Court said that the conduct of one of petitioner's who had appeared subsequently in another matter, "prima facie" reflects that he was under the impression that "trial court is without teeth", and can "only hiss" because he is an active practitioner before the court. 

The High Court also criticized the lawyers, Amber Imam Hashmi and Kausar Imam Hashmi, for imputing allegations of bias on the trial judge, who had dismissed their Section 317 CrPC (Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases) CrPC. 

The petitioners sought to quash the trial court's orders dismissing the petitioners' plea under Section 317 CrPC, pursuant to which the trial court had also cancelled their bail bonds. Amber Imam Hashmi  who was present in court, was thereafter taken into custody and remanded to jail, whereas the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against Kausar Imam Hashmi.

Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha in his order said:

"The extreme pain as felt by learned trial court can be understood easily while authoring impugned order dated 20.06.2025, through which the bail bond of the petitioners was canceled, whereafter the petitioner, Amber Imam Hashmi, was taken into custody and NBW was issued against petitioner Kausar Imam Hashmi. It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that time and again several direction were given by this court for expeditious disposal of this case which has been pending for so many years for trial for the occurrence of the year 1994. 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. This conduct of the petitioner is prima-facie evident of the fact that he was under the impressions that he is above the law and also that the learned trial court is without teeth, can't bite, only hiss for the simple reason that he is an active practitioner of the court". 

The court further noted, that the junior counsel who had appeared on behalf of the accused petitioner had addressed the trial court by stating that “Boss is not appearing today” which reflects the "deliberate non-cooperative attitude" of the petitioners, thereby "undermining the authority and sanctity of the judicial process".

Background

The petitions arose from a 1994 case involving alleging murder and firearms-related offences against the petitioners. A counter-case was filed by the petitioners which is also pending.

On June 20 the Additional Sessions Judge Darbhanga, cancelled the petitioners' bail bonds remanding Amber Imam Hashmi into custody and issuing NBW against Kausar Imam Hashmi after they filed for exemption under Section 317 CrPC (Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases).

This was after one of the petitioner's appeared for another, unrelated matter in the same courtroom in his professional capacity, shortly after the matter involving him as a party and allegedly refusing to comply with courtroom directives.

The petitioners argued that main reason for rejection of petitioners' representation under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. appears to be out of personal knowledge of the concerned Presiding officer "suggesting the biased approach of the Court for the only reason that the petitioners are active practitioners of the civil district court, Darbhanga". 

It was also argued that though Amber Imam Hashmi was granted provisional bail by the trial court itself after four days of his judicial custody but the conditions which were imposed while granting provisional bail appears onerous and, therefore, the same should be deleted/quashed from the provisional bail order and petitioner be allowed to remain on his earlier bail.

State argued that the petitioners are active practitioners of civil court Darbhanga and being well-versed with the procedural intricacies of law, were deliberately exploiting legal loopholes with oblique motive to delay the trial. It was pointed out by the State that the date, on which trial court order was passed the petitioner made an application under Section 317 CrPC; however, after one hour he appeared in the same court in professional capacity and when his said conduct was questioned in view of reason disclosed in his representation petition under Section 317 CrPC, "he showed his rudeness and only thereafter his bail bond was canceled" and he was taken into custody.

Findings

Upholding the order the high court regarding allegations of bias against the trial court said:

"As far as the allegation of biasness and onerous conditions are concerned this court is of the view that the action which alleged to be taken under biased approach of learned trial court, was annexed and taken to uphold the majesty of law. The steps were taken correctly to give a message that none is above the law and to achieve the objective of “speedy trial” as matter is pending since last 28 years. Terms and conditions as imposed appears regulatory in nature to maintain the decorum of the Court".

The high court said that in view of the available material, it could not gather any biased approach of the trial court towards petitioners. The high court further noted that as per SSP Dharbanga's report remaining prosecution witnesses would be examined within next six months.

"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 high court said. 

It further underscored that "speedy trial is not the right of the accused only, it is also the right of the victim also". However the high court directed the transfer of the petitioners' counter-case (Sessions Trial No. 395/1998) to the same court handling the main trial.

Case Title: Amber Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar and Anr & Another

Counsel For the Petitioner : Mrs. Shama Sinha, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kr. Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Adv. Ms. Suman Kumari,

Counsel for Respondent: Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar APP, Adv. Mrs. Renu Kumari APP

Click Here To Read Order