The Patna High Court has dismissed petitions filed by two senior advocates from Darbhanga, who had sought exemption from personal appearance in a long‑pending murder case dating back to 1994. The two lawyers, Amber Imam Hashmi and Kausar Imam Hashmi, had challenged orders of the trial court which dismissed their Section 317 CrPC applications and cancelled their bail bonds. The High Court’s decision was premised on their conduct, which was found to show disrespect to the judicial process and undermined the authority of the trial court.
Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha presided over the matter, noting that despite being practitioners before the trial court, the petitioners had deliberately avoided attending it in person. One of them had filed an application seeking personal exemption under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows the trial court to proceed in the absence of the accused in certain circumstances, but the application was rejected and their bail bonds were cancelled. The High Court observed that shortly thereafter, one of the petitioners, Amber Imam Hashmi, appeared before the same trial court in a professional capacity in an unrelated matter. This conduct led the Court to conclude that he acted under the impression that the trial court had no effective power over him despite being actively practicing in it.
The High Court sharply criticised this attitude as a direct affront to the authority of the trial judiciary. It held that such disregard for judicial orders and procedures is unacceptable, particularly from members of the legal profession who are expected to uphold the integrity of the system. The Court remarked that the junior counsel appearing on behalf of one of the lawyers went so far as to state in open court that “Boss is not appearing today,” an admission that reflected a deliberate and contemptuous approach to the judicial process.
The petitions sought quashing of the trial court’s orders dismissing their exemption pleas, along with cancellation of their bail bonds, contending various grounds including alleged bias. The High Court rejected these claims, stating that the trial court’s orders were not perverse or unreasonable and thus did not merit judicial interference.
Justice Jha underscored that the petitioners’ conduct was not only professionally unbecoming but also demonstrated contempt for the judicial administration. He held that a lawyer who disregards a trial court’s directives and assumes immunity from its jurisdiction cannot, in good conscience, expect relief from a higher court. The High Court’s stance was firm: senior advocates must not treat the trial court as toothless or irrelevant merely because they practice there regularly.
As a result, the Patna High Court refused to interfere with the orders under challenge. It upheld the validity of the trial court’s rejection of their Section 317 applications and the cancellation of their bail bonds. The petitions were dismissed in limine, with the Court affirming that members of the legal profession must act with respect, decorum, and responsibility, especially in criminal proceedings that span decades.
The judgment also served as a broader reminder to legal practitioners that professional privilege does not extend to disregard for court orders. By failing to attend at the trial court, the petitioners exposed themselves to contempt of process, which the High Court was unwilling to condone. Their attempt to bypass personal attendance while continuing to appear before the same court in other matters was found to be inconsistent and in defiance of judicial norms.
This decision reinforces the principle that exemption from personal appearance in criminal matters is not a general entitlement but must be exercised with caution, respect, and sufficient justification. It also emphasizes that trial courts have inherent authority to enforce compliance and suspend relief when orders are treated with flippancy. The Patna High Court’s dismissal of the petitions thus reaffirms judicial integrity and procedural propriety in the administration of criminal justice.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.