“Equality Above the Bar” – Patna High Court Validates Trial Courts’ Powers to Cancel Bail and Impose Regulatory Conditions on Advocate-Accused to Secure a Speedy Trial

1. Introduction

Case: Amber Imam Hashmi & Kausar Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court, Criminal Misc. Nos. 43259 & 43260 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 01 August 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha

Two practising criminal lawyers of Darbhanga, Amber Imam Hashmi and his brother Kausar Imam Hashmi, stand accused of multiple serious offences, including murder (s.302 IPC) and attempt to murder, arising out of Bishanpur P.S. Case 58/1994. Aggrieved by the trial court’s order of 20 June 2025 that (a) rejected their applications under s.317 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance, (b) cancelled their bail bonds, (c) remanded Amber to custody and issued NBW against Kausar, and by the later provisional-bail order dated 24 June 2025 which contained “onerous” conditions, they invoked Patna High Court’s quashing jurisdiction under ss.528–529 of the newly-enacted Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioners alleged bias, misuse of judicial remarks, and disproportionate restrictions on their liberty.

The High Court dismissed the petitions, upheld the trial court’s course of action, ordered clubbing of the connected cross-case (Bishanpur P.S. Case 57/1994 – Sessions Trial 395/1998) for joint trial, and emphasised that advocate-accused are no different from ordinary accused for the purpose of bail and procedural compliance. The Court thereby sets a precedent on:

Scope of Section 317 CrPC when misused for repeated exemptions,
Trial court’s authority to cancel bail, impose strict, behaviour-related conditions, and even take an advocate-accused into custody to protect the integrity and pace of trial,
Mandatory joint trial of case and counter-case to avoid conflicting verdicts.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The petitions for quashing the trial court’s orders were dismissed in toto.
The High Court found no evidence of judicial bias or any “onerous” condition that violated fundamental rights; the restrictions were held to be regulatory and proportionate, aimed at ensuring the appearance of the accused and decorum of the court.
Reiterated that speedy trial is the right of both the accused and the victims; delaying tactics by seasoned advocates cannot be countenanced.
Directed transfer of the cross-case (Sessions Trial 395/1998) to the same court (Additional Sessions Judge-III, Darbhanga) to be tried concomitantly, in line with the Supreme Court’s dicta in Nathi Lal and Mishrilal.
Endorsed the trial court’s reliance on earlier High Court directions (2015) to finish the trial expeditiously, holding that custody or strict conditional bail is a permissible means to achieve that mandate.
Clarified that Sections 528–529 BNSS (functionally replacing ss.482/483 CrPC for inherent jurisdiction) do not empower the High Court to interfere with interlocutory orders (such as provisional bail conditions) unless those orders are patently illegal or perverse, which was not shown here.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

Nathi Lal v. State of U.P., 1990 Supp SCC 145 – The bedrock decision mandating simultaneous trial of case and counter-case by the same judge to prevent conflicting findings. Relied upon by petitioners and accepted by the Court, leading to the clubbing direction.
Mishrilal v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 4089 – Reaffirmed Nathi Lal; employed by the High Court (¶20) to support clubbing and highlight prosecution’s duty to sift truth from falsehood.
Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal v. State of Bihar, 2008 SCC OnLine Pat 254 – Explained that, before cancelling bail, a court which had routinely allowed s.317 exemptions must give explicit warning. The High Court distinguished Tekriwal, holding that the advocates’ conduct (appearing in other matters the same day) justified immediate action.
S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., (1974) 3 SCC 459 – Articulated the “reasonable man” test for bias. Quoted by petitioners; the High Court applied the same test and found no real likelihood of bias.
Avtar Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1982 SC 1260 – Concerns humane treatment (allowing accused to sit). Cited to question the trial judge’s attitude, but Court noted that orders addressed only procedural compliance, not ill-treatment.
Saronraj @ Nagaraj v. State, Madras HC, Crl.OP (MD) 14215/2024 – Trial delays due to mechanical s.317 exemptions; State relied on it to justify stricter bail. Patna HC approved the logic.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the High Court

Nature of impugned orders: Both were interlocutory and focused on attendance/bail management, falling within the trial court’s discretionary powers under ss.436-439 CrPC (now BNSS equivalents) and s.317 CrPC.
Misuse of Section 317 CrPC: The petitioners invoked repeated exemptions while physically appearing in other matters. This constituted dilatory tactics and justified revocation of bail without a further warning step, distinguishing Tekriwal.
Equality before law: The Court stressed Art.14 of the Constitution – a practising advocate cannot claim professional privilege to obstruct criminal proceedings. “The law hisses and can bite” – echo of the trial court’s words.
Proportionality of bail conditions: Conditions (attend every hearing; no intimidation; no courtroom misconduct) were directly tethered to the past behaviour; therefore not oppressive but regulatory.
Mandate of speedy trial: Reinforced by earlier High Court directions (2015) and SC jurisprudence (Hussainara Khatoon line of cases). When delay results from the accused’s own stratagems, custodial steps are valid.
Consolidation of cross-cases: To avert inconsistent judgments, the High Court obligated transfer and joint trial, importing the Nathi Lal principle into Bihar’s trial management.
Scope of BNSS 2023 Sections 528-529: Although textually similar to s.482 CrPC (inherent powers), the Court clarified that quashing is sparingly exercised, especially against interim orders aimed at trial management.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

This ruling is expected to:

Serve as a deterrent precedent against the misuse of s.317 CrPC by lawyer-accused across Bihar (and potentially other states) to protract trials.
Empower trial judges to cancel bail, remand, or impose conduct-based conditions where the accused’s behaviour demonstrably hampers progress.
Bolster the jurisprudence on clubbed trials of cross-cases, ensuring uniformity of findings and curtailing parallel proceedings.
Offer the first prominent interpretation of the BNSS, 2023 (yet to replace CrPC) vis-à-vis inherent powers, signalling continuity with s.482 CrPC jurisprudence.
Reinforce that membership of the legal fraternity is not a shield against criminal process; professional status may even demand higher standards of courtroom discipline.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 317 CrPC – Exemption from Personal Attendance: Allows an accused to be represented by a lawyer on a given date only if the judge is satisfied that physical presence is unnecessary. It is discretionary, revocable, and does not create a vested right.
Cancellation of Bail vs. Rejection of Bail: Rejection occurs at the initial application stage; cancellation happens later if conditions are violated or new circumstances arise, even without new evidence.
Interlocutory Order: An interim order which does not finally decide the rights of parties (e.g., a provisional bail order). High Courts ordinarily avoid quashing such orders unless they’re patently illegal.
Case & Counter-Case: Two FIRs about the same incident but filed by opposing sides. Joint trial ensures one coherent factual finding.
BNSS, 2023: India’s impending Code to replace CrPC. Sections 528-529 preserve High Courts’ inherent powers akin to s.482 CrPC.

5. Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in Amber Imam Hashmi v. State of Bihar chisels out a clear message: practising advocates stand on the same footing as any other accused when facing criminal charges. Tactical invocation of procedural provisions, courtroom discourtesy, or leverage of professional influence will invite stringent judicial response—up to and including cancellation of bail.

By upholding the trial court’s hands-on, conduct-based approach and mandating consolidation of the counter-case, the Court fortifies two cardinal principles: speedy trial and equality before law. Further, the judgment inaugurates the BNSS era with continuity and clarity: High Courts retain inherent powers but must wield them sparingly, especially against interlocutory orders tailored to protect trial integrity.

Justice is blind — and so must be its scales, whether weighed for a layman or for a lawyer.