Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1348
PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J
Amber Imam Hashmi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43259 of 2025|CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 43260 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Shama Sinha, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Kr. Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Adv., Ms. Suman Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar, APP, Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP
The court upheld the principles of expeditious trial and judicial integrity, dismissing claims of bias and emphasizing the need for accountability to prevent manipulation by influential accused.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 528 and 529 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 317 - Quashing petitions under the BNSS related to cancellation of bail bonds - The learned Additional Sessions Judge canceled bail bonds due to perceived attempts by the accused to delay the trial, citing a history of non-cooperation and manipulation of records (Paras 3, 6, 8, 20).
(B) Right to a speedy trial - Underlined by the court that the rights of victims are as significant as those of the accused and that delays must be curtailed (Para 28).
Facts of the case:
The petitions stem from Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999 concerning a murder charge stemming from two cross cases initiated in 1994, highlighting the accused's extensive involvement and manipulation to delay proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The trials must proceed expeditiously, and the court will not allow influential persons to undermine judicial processes.
Issues: The main issues include the alleged bias in trial court decisions and the rationale for canceling bail, viewed against a backdrop of 28 years of pending trials.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of presenting the accused for trial to prevent further delays, asserting that legal representatives must adhere to court decorum (Paras 6, 18).
Result: The quashing petitions were dismissed as lacking merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing petitions for bail orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on trial delay and bail conditions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. context of case progression and accusations. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. arguments regarding bias in trial proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. justifications for the learned court's approach. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. concern over witness tampering and trial speed. (Para 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. reflections on trial conditions and procedural fairness. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. final thoughts on court authority and justice. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 9. conclusion on case management and directions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 01-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The present quashing petition preferred under Section 528 and 529 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS) praying for quashing of the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999/ registration no. 3038 of 2014, arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No 58 of 1994 for petitioner namely, Amber Imam Hashmi and quashing of the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2010/ registration no. 3037 of 2014, arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No 58 of 1994 for petitioner namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi.
3. Both petitioners /accused preferred application before learned trial court for their representation under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, Cr.P.C.), which was rejected through impugned order and thereafter the bail bond of both petitioners was canceled, subsequent to that the accused petitioner, namely, Amber Imam Hashmi ( of Cr. Misc. No. 43259 of 2025) who was present in court, was taken into custody and remanded to jail, whereas the NBW was issued against another accused /petitioner, namely Kausar Imam Hashmi (of Cr. Misc No. 43260 of 2025). Both accused petitioners are active practitioners of the District Civil Court, Darbhanga.
4. As a matter of subsequent development the accused petitioner, namely, Amber Imam Hashmi was granted provisional bail vide order dated 24.06.2025 by learned trial court, whereas the execution of NBW qua accused petitioner, namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi, was stayed provisionally till 27.06.2025. These orders were also challenged saying learned trial court out of its biased approach inserted some onerous condition.
5. The main prayer of Mrs. Shama Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is to quash certain remarks while granting provisional bail to the petitioner namely, Amber Imam Hashmi, and also certain observations made by the learned trial court because it appears contemptuous and were imposed with a biased approach. It is also prayed that these prayers were raised through I.A. No. 01 of 2025 as preferred in both the petitions separately. To understand the factual background, it is important to mention that for the crime in question, two separate FIRs were lodged. The first FIR was Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994 lodged by the petitioners side, in counter to which Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994 was lodged, where the petitioners are accused. Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994 was lodged for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. alongwith other allied sections of IPC along with Arms Act, which later on converted to 302 of IPC. For Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 1994, Sessions Trial no. 395 of 1998 is pending before the court of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge VII, Darbhanga.
6. To understand the factual aspects for preferring the present criminal quashing petition, it would be apposite to reproduce the order dated 20.06.2025 as passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999 by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga :-
Annexure. P/1
Sessions Trial No. 326/1999
CIS No. 3038/2014
(Arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 58/1994)
Order-20-06-2025
(1) The Present mat
