PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON KAUSAR IMAM HASHMI V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHER

PATNA, India, Sept. 1 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 1:

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.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM0MzI2MCMyMDI1IzEjTg==-GGnDf3FW4Qw=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.