In Amber Imam Hashmi v. The State of Bihar & Anr. Criminal Miscellaneous No.43259 of 2025, Patna High Court's, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha observed:"....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. 28. 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." In Nathi Lal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Anr reported in 1990 Supp SCC 145, the Supreme Court reiterated in State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 4089, 

The Court in Nathilal vs. State of U.P. pointed out the procedure to be followed by the Trial Court in the event of cross cases. It was observed thus:-

"We think that the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross cases, is to direct that the same learned Judge must try both the cross cases one after the other. After the recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording all the evidence he must hear the arguments but reserve the judgment in that case. The same learned Judge must thereafter dispose of the matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Nor can the judge be influenced by whatever is argued in the cross case. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case without being influenced in any manner by the evidence or arguments urged in the cross case. But both the judgments must be pronounced by the same learned Judge one after the other."

In the instant case the quashing petition preferred under Section 528 and 529 of the Bhartiya Nagarikl) Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying for quashing of the order dated June 20, 2025 passed by 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 June 20, 2025 passed by 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. Both petitioners /accused had preferred application before trial court for their representation under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (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.

As a matter of subsequent development the

accused petitioner, namely, Amber Imam Hashmi was granted provisional bail vide order dated June 24, 2025 by trial court, whereas the execution of NBW qua accused petitioner, namely, Kausar Imam Hashmi, was stayed provisionally till June 27, 2025. These orders were also challenged saying trial court out of its biased approach inserted some onerous condition.

The counsel for the petitioners had prayed for the quashing of 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 appeared contemptuous and were imposed with a biased approach. It was 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 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 June 20, 2025 as

passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1999 by  Additional Sessions Judge III, Darbhanga. 

There were a total six accused persons facing trial in the present case. Originally, there were total 12 accused persons. One more sessions trial being Sessions Trial No. 320/2010 (CIS 3037/2014) stands separated from this trial. There is representation under section 317 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 on behalf of the accused Amber Imam Hashmi, Raja Hashmi, Anjar Hussian and Mobin Hashmi. So far as the accused Ishmat Belal Hashmi and Jasim Nadaf are concerned, counsel for co-accused submits that they have died and in due course,

death certificate would be filed on or before the next date. So, now this case is for trial of four accused persons namely (1) Amber Imam Hashni (2) Raja Hashmi (3) Anjar Hashmi and (4) Mobin Hashmi subject to confirmation of death of co-accused persons. (ii) The accused Amber Imam Hashmi is an advocate of Darbhanga Bar Association. He appeared just after

about 01 hour from the time of filing representation for arguing in another case. 

The Court observed:"The record of this case speaks volume about the fact that all possible effort has been taken by the accused to delay the trial of this & case. In this regard, it would be sufficient to place on record that the

Hon'ble Court vide its order Judgement dated 21-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.

27216/2004 had been pleased to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Para 5 of rejected judgement read as" since in this case discharge petition was rejected long back on July 3, 2004, while dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct  court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. While proceeding with the case, trial judge is required to take up this matter at

least thrice in a week. Office is directed to

communicate this order to the court below forthwith for its strict compliance." 

Further, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44013 of 2012 had been pleased to observe "Since the criminal case was lodged way back in the year 1994 and since then more than 20 years

have already elapsed, therefore, the learned trial court is further directed to take up the trial of the accused persons on priority basis and make all endeavours to conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. The learned trial court shall not grant unnecessary & case.

In this regard, it would be sufficient to place on record that the Hon'ble Court vide its order Judgement dated 21-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27216/2004 had been pleased to direct the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Para 5 of the said judgement read as" since in this case discharge petition

was rejected long back on 03-07-2004, while

dismissing the present petition, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without unnecessary delay. While proceeding with the case, learned trial judge is required to take up this matter at least thrice in a week. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court below forthwith for

its strict compliance." Further, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 16-04-2015 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44013 of 2012 had been pleased to observe "Since the criminal case was lodged way back in the year 1994 and since then more than 20 years have already elapsed, therefore, the learned trial court is further directed to take up the trial of the accused

persons on priority basis and make all endeavours to conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of six months from the date ofreceipt/production of a copy of the present order. The learned trial court shall not grant unnecessary a  adjournment merely on asking either on behalf of the prosecution or on behalf of the defence." 

(iv) It is also appropriate to mention here that no stone has been left unturned to malign the Judicial Officer whoever took up this case and just to delay it either by the accused Amber Imam Hashmi or co-accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi. In this regard, Order dated 02-

06-2014, 06-06-20214 and 16-06-2014 passed by

then District Judge, Darbhanga is quite relevant to refer to which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Court on being challenged. The then learned District Judge, Darbhanga vide its order dated 06-06-2014 had been pleased to observe vide para 5 that " Considering the aforesaid facts and also considering the submissions of the learned Incharge PP and also the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi, one application which was filed on 03-06-2014 by the co-accused Amber Imam Hashmi is not maintainable and hereby rejected. The another application dated 03-06-2014 was filed by the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi is only with a view to cast aspersion on judiciary. The accused persons are really

acting against the interest of administration of justice. The application dated 03-06-2014 filed by the accused in which false and malicious statement made by them amount to scandalising the court and undermining the majesty of justice and therefore, the application dated 03-06-2014 filed by the accused Kaushar Imam Hashmi is hereby rejected. 

The proceedings of the trial of the present case shall be continued from day to day until all the prosecution witnesses in attendance have

ben examined, irrespective of any hurdles that may be created by the accused persons." The conduct as mentioned in the order is just a tip of iceberg. It is an important to note that even the matters get delayed till date. (v) One more surprising thing which has been noticed by this court that records of this court stands manipulated. It appears that manipulation by putting blade cut on postmortem report is quite evident. Who did it and when it was done is a matter of inquiry because this records got transferred between several court and passes through hands of different office clerk

in the last several years but the possibility of

involvement of the accused cannot be ruled out for the reason that he is an ultimate beneficiary of such manipulation to delay the trial. This court would make endeavour to have second copy from the DMCH, Darbhanga as early as possible.

(vi) The profile of the accused is also needs to be taken into consideration. He is an advocate for the last 40 years. His two brothers are also practising lawyer in this court. One of them died during pendency of the case as submitted across the bench. They are highly influential. At least, the accused Amber Imam Hashmi is concerned, he does not hesitate to make unbecoming

behaviour contrary to the normal practice in the court room.

(vii) Now, once after filing representation, the accused Amber Imam Hashmi appeared in the court. This court ask him as to why he is ready to argue in another case and has filed representation in his own case. This court

further asked to at least go the dock and show respect to this court. He did not move from his chair. Even after repeated request, he did not go. He even tried to go from the court without following the order made by this court.

(viii) The present matter is old one. This needs to be disposed of quickly as per direction of the Hon'ble Court. This court is of the view that without taking the accused Amber Imam Hashmi into custody, the trial of