Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking to quash orders of the trial court that had rejected applications under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), cancelled the bail bonds of two accused, issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against one of them, and granted conditional provisional bail to the other. The Court found no bias or illegality in the trial court’s orders and observed that the measures were regulatory in nature, aimed at expediting a trial pending since 1994. The Court held that the accused were deliberately avoiding the judicial process and upheld the trial court’s right to impose conditions to ensure justice was not thwarted. The High Court further ordered transfer of the cross-case for simultaneous trial in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nathi Lal.
Facts
Two practicing advocates, accused in a 1994 murder and attempted murder case, approached the High Court under Sections 528 and 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to quash the trial court’s order dated 20.06.2025. One petitioner was taken into custody on cancellation of his bail bond, while the other faced a non-bailable warrant. The petitions also challenged remarks and conditions imposed by the trial court in a subsequent provisional bail order dated 24.06.2025, alleging them to be biased and contemptuous. Notably, the trial arises from a 1994 incident involving two FIRs — one filed by the accused’s side (P.S. Case No. 57/1994) and the other, now under trial, filed against them (P.S. Case No. 58/1994).
Issues
- Whether the trial court’s rejection of representation under Section 317 CrPC and cancellation of bail bond amounted to judicial bias?
- Whether the conditions imposed in the provisional bail order were illegal, onerous, or violative of the petitioners’ rights?
- Whether the case and counter-case trials should be clubbed and tried by the same judge as per the Supreme Court’s directions in Nathi Lal?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Mrs. Shama Sinha, argued that the trial court acted with a biased approach, targeting them for being practicing advocates. The rejection of representation under Section 317 CrPC was unjustified especially when representations of other co-accused were accepted the same day. Mrs. Sinha submitted that the conduct of the trial court — including its remarks in the provisional bail order — reflected contempt and overreach. She further contended that the conditions imposed while granting interim bail were onerous and punitive. Citing Avtar Singh v. State of M.P., (1982) and S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P., (1974), she argued that even the impression of bias was sufficient to warrant judicial interference.
She also cited Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal v. State of Bihar, (2008) to contend that the procedure under Section 317 CrPC was not followed properly and the court acted in excess of jurisdiction by cancelling bail without adequate warning or opportunity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, through its APP, opposed the petitions, asserting that the impugned orders were necessitated due to repeated non-cooperation by the petitioners, who had actively delayed the trial for over 28 years. The APP argued that the accused, despite filing for exemption under Section 317 CrPC, appeared in another case in the same court on the same day, demonstrating willful disrespect. The APP submitted that the petitioners were exploiting their positions as seasoned lawyers to obstruct the proceedings.
The State also referred to Saronraj @ Nagaraj v. State (Madras High Court, 2024), where it was held that misuse of Section 317 CrPC can paralyze justice and deter witnesses from testifying. It was argued that the trial court’s actions were regulatory, not punitive, and within the bounds of law to ensure progress of a long-pending trial.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court examined Section 317 CrPC, which permits exemption from personal appearance during trial only if the court is satisfied that such exemption would not hamper justice. The provision also allows courts to revoke such exemption and require personal appearance. The Court emphasized that if such direction is ignored, coercive steps including cancellation of bail bonds and issuance of warrants are permissible under Chapter VI and Chapter XXXIII of the CrPC.
The Court further held that bail conditions, though strict, must be read in light of the conduct of the accused and the need to preserve the sanctity of judicial proceedings. Importantly, the petitioners were not only accused but also practicing advocates with substantial influence in the Bar, which imposed a higher responsibility on them to comply with judicial discipline.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the following judgments:
- Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (1990 Supp SCC 145) – Held that cross-cases must be tried together to avoid conflicting verdicts. The Court applied this principle and directed that the counter-case also be transferred to the same judge.
- State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (AIR 2003 SC 4089) – Reiterated the principle that both cases should be tried simultaneously by the same court.
- Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal v. State of Bihar (2008 SCC OnLine Pat 254) – Laid down procedure for rejecting representation under Section 317 and conditions for cancellation of bail. Distinguished here due to the accused’s repeated misconduct.
- S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. (1974) 3 SCC 459 – Discussed the test of “real likelihood of bias.” The Court held that no such bias was evident here.
- Avtar Singh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1982 SC 1260) – Held that minor procedural lapses by courts do not indicate bias unless there is substantial injustice. The Court found no unfairness in the present case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the accused had, over decades, “left no stone unturned” to delay the trial. Despite judicial directions dating back to 2015 mandating that the case be concluded within six months, the trial had stagnated due to non-cooperation. The Court found it particularly egregious that the petitioner sought exemption from appearance, yet appeared before the same judge for another matter on the same day, refusing to enter the dock when asked.
The Court also highlighted that the bail conditions were not punitive but regulatory, intended to protect the integrity of the judicial process. It held that “justice must be seen to be done” and that the impugned orders were necessary to preserve the authority of the court. Importantly, the High Court found no substance in the allegations of bias or judicial misconduct and upheld the trial court’s right to act firmly in the face of calculated disruption.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed both petitions, observing:
“There is no occasion to interfere with the impugned orders as passed by the learned trial court… The speedy trial is not the right of the accused only, it is also the right of the victim.”
The Court directed that the counter-case (Sessions Trial No. 395 of 1998) arising from FIR No. 57/1994 be transferred to the same court trying the present matter, for simultaneous disposal.
Implications
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s intolerance toward procedural delays caused by accused persons misusing their status as legal professionals. It affirms that judicial officers are well within their rights to impose regulatory conditions and exercise discretion in bail matters. The decision also reinforces the principle that justice must be fair to both the accused and the victim, and delays can no longer be weaponized under the guise of due process.
FAQs
1. Can a court cancel bail for non-cooperation even if exemption under Section 317 CrPC is filed?
Yes, if a court finds that an accused is misusing Section 317 CrPC to avoid trial or delay proceedings, it can cancel bail and issue a warrant, especially in serious offences like murder.
2. What is the significance of the Nathi Lal judgment in this case?
The Nathi Lal judgment mandates that cross-cases be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting judgments. The High Court invoked this to order transfer of the counter-case.
3. Are strict bail conditions valid when imposed on advocates?
Yes. The law applies equally to all. Courts can impose strict bail conditions on lawyers if their conduct indicates potential obstruction of justice or influence on witnesses.
