Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha, Patna High Court
Deliberate Non-Cooperative Attitude; Undermining Authority Of Judicial Process: Patna High Court Dismisses Plea Of Accused Lawyers In 1994 Murder Case
|The Patna High Court said that the conduct of accused is just a tip of ice berg as in the case where he is accused, a Petition under Section 317 CrPC was filed whereas in another case, after a one hour, he appeared before the Court in his professional capacity.
The Patna High Court has dismissed the Petitions filed by the accused lawyers in 1994 murder case under Sections 528 and 529 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The Petitions sought to quash the Order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha remarked, “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 of the petitioners and the impression sought to be conveyed by them, thereby undermining the authority and sanctity of the judicial process. Moreover, the petitioners no. 1 is on provisional bail, whereas the execution of NBW against petitioner no. 2, has already stayed by learned trial court itself, prima-facie making these petitions infructuous on this score.”
The Bench said that the conduct of accused 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 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) was filed whereas in another case, after a one hour, he appeared before the Court in his professional capacity.
Advocate Shama Sinha represented the Petitioners while APPs Manoj Kumar and Renu Kumari represented the Opposite Parties.
Factual Background
Two FIRs were lodged against the Petitioners-accused persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Both the accused preferred an Application before the Trial Court for their representation under Section 317 CrPC, which was rejected and hence, their bail bonds were cancelled. Subsequently, one accused was taken into custody and remanded to jail.
On the other hand, NBW was issued against another accused. Both accused were active Practitioners of the District Civil Court, Darbhanga. The former accused was granted provisional bail by the Trial Court in June 2025 but the execution of NBW qua latter accused was stayed provisionally. Hence, they were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “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.”
As far as the allegation of biasness and onerous conditions are concerned, the Court was of the view that the action which alleged to be taken under biased approach of the 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. … This Court with available material failed to gather any biased approach of the learned trial court towards petitioners”, it noted.
The Court said that there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned Orders as passed by the Trial Court.
“The speedy trial is not the right of the accused only, it is also the right of the victim also. However, by taking guiding note of the Nathilal case (supra), the cross case which was lodged for the same occurrence as Bishanpur P.S. case No. 57 of 1994, by petitioners side for which the Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1998 is pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge VII, Darbhanga/ or in any other court shall be transferred to the Court of Additional Session Judge III, Darbhanga, where the present case is pending and to proceed accordingly”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title- Amber Imam Hashmi v. The State of Bihar & Anr. (Case Number: CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43259 of 2025)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shama Sinha, Nikhil Kr. Agarwal, Aditi Hansaria, and Suman Kumari.
Opposite Parties: APPs Manoj Kumar and Renu Kumari.