SATISH LODHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Police Station Mandan Mahal, Jabalpur registered the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 406, 409 read with Section 34 of IPC at Crime No.271/2010. On committal it is registered as Sessions Trial No. 94/2011 and pending in the Court of First Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur. In the said offence, total number of accused is thirteen, they arc Kshitij Dubey, Amol Sheorey, Vikas Saxena, Firdaus @ Smt. Shikha, Wahid Sicidique, Javed Ahmad Khan, Dr Jyotsana Pare, Anil Kumar Gupta, Ajay Pandey, Satish Babu Lodhi, Azhar Siraj, B.D. Vairagi and Smt. Sarika Naik Dubey. Except Azhar Siraj and Smt. Sarika Naik Dubey, all have been surrendered. THE gist of the prosecution story is that on having received information about the clearance of cheque of Rs. 50.00 lacs from Axix Bank, Napier Town, Jabalpur, the income Tax Department conducted a raid. On interception and in preliminary Investigation it was found that there is a possibility of misappropriation of the amount of Rs.50.00 crore received by Axis Bank, Jabalpur from Apex Bank, Bhopal. Co-accused Kshitij Dubey, Dy. Manager of the Axis Bank, Napier Town Branch has been alleged as the king-pin of the said incident. THE FIR has been lodged by the co-accused Amol Sheorey on 22.8.2010. In the investigation, misappropriation of the huge amount of public money was found with the connivance of the said accused persons, however challan has been filed against them. Some of the persons are under cloud against whom further investigation under Section 173 sub clause (8) of Cr.P.C. is still pending. This case is know as Axis Bank Ghautala case.

(2.) THE bail petitions of nine accused persons, namely, Firdaus @ Smt. Shikha, Amol Sheorey, Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Vikas Saxena, Anil Kumar Gupta, Satish Babu Lodhi, Ajay Pandey, Wahid Siddique and Javed Ahmad Khan were heard by this Court analogously on 26.11.2010. By a detailed order passed on the said date, two accused persons, namely, Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena were enlarged on bail, considering the role as assigned to them and in view of the report of Mr. P. Natarajan, Vice President, Internal Audit Department, Central Office, Mumbai, who reported that their act may be amounting to procedural irregularity. It has been observed by this Court that such irregularity may involve any liability to commit the offence is required to be examined in trial. Those were also not found the beneficiary of the amount so disbursed and no recoveries were made from them. This Court was not inclined to enlarge the remaining accused persons, however on the request of counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons, Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Satish Babu Lodhi and Anil Kumar Gupta, their bail petitions were dismissed as not pressed after arguments Being lady in the case of Dr. Jyotsana Pare, it was observed that she may renew the prayer after six months. Thus, while granting bait to co-accused, Amol Sheore, and Vikas Saxena on 26.11.2010, this Court has not found parity in the case of Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Satish Babu Lodhi and Anil Kumar Gupta. THEse three accused persons have been granted bail by the Trial Court vide orders dated 11.5.2011,18.5.2011 and 28.2.2011 respectively. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid the comments from the First Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EOW), Jahalpur were sought and on receiving the reply, the action against the Judge by the High Court on administrative side was proposed by the order dated 20.7.2011 Thus it is clear that it is a case wherein after rejection of the bail by High Court, the Trial Court enlarged the three accused persons on bail. However, in furtherance to the order dated 20.7.2011, bailable warrants-cum-notice, for cancellation of bail were issued to three accused persons, namely, Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Satish Babu Lodhi and Anil Kumar Gupta and directed to appear on 2nd August, 2011. On the request made by the Advocates and the accused present in Court, time was allowed up to 8th August, 2011 to file the reply.

(3.) THIS Court in various cases laid down the principle of law on the point in context, but borrowing some principles from the judgment of Shantilal Vs State of M.P., 1989 Cr.LR (MP) 3 speaking Hon'ble Shri Justice K.L. Shrivastava said as thus: