(08/08/2011) 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 are Kshitij Dubey, Amol Sheorey, Vikas Saxena, Firdaus @ Smt. Shikha, Wahid Siddique, 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 known 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 bail 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), Jabalpur 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. It is to be further noted here that in the case of accused-Satish Babu Lodhi, Shri V.P.Singh, Advocate has appeared in High Court on behalf of accused. During the pendency of the said bail petition, he has also filed bail petition in trial court and appeared which was allowed. After release of the accused, he has filed application (I.A. No.10860/2011 ) for withdrawal of the bail petition. Mr. M.P. Acharya, Advocate appeared on behalf of accused - Anil Kumar Gupta and without filing the affidavit in support of the bail petition insisted the Court to take up the case on 28.2.2011 i.e. the date of the filing of the bail petition though it was not the date in trial, without applying for urgent hearing and on the insistence the accused was released on the same date. Dr. Roop Kamal Pare (mother of Dr. Jyotsana Pare) has submitted affidavit in support of the bail petition on behalf of her daughter with incorrect information which was granted by the Trial Court. Brij Kishore Lodhi (father of accused Satish Babu Lodhi) has also submitted affidavit in support of the bail petition on behalf of accused-Satish Babu Lodhi. Thus on the basis of furnishing wrong information by way of affidavits or otherwise, the action has been proposed against them. By the said order dated 20.7.2011, it was also directed why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against Mr.V.P. Singh, Advocate, Mr. M.P. Acharya, Advocate, Dr. Roop Kamal Pare (mother of the accused-Dr. Jyotsana Pare), Brij Kishore Lodhi (father of the accused-Satish Babu Lodhi). The notice issued to Brij Kishore Lodhi has not been received after service though remaining other persons are present and the reply filed by them has also been received.
4. Prior to dealing with the rival contentions, it is necessary to take guidance on the issue by case laws when the bail petitions were rejected by the High Court but granted by the Sessions Court, and other pivotal guidelines determined for filing the bail petition. Before the Apex Court in the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another, AIR 1987 SC 1613, the issue came up for consideration, when one judge rejected three successive bail petitions of an accused involved in a case of murder, the subsequent bail petition filed by the said accused was listed before the vacation Judge of the High Court. The said Judge directed for listing the case before the Judge who has earlier rejected three bail petitions after vacation. Thereafter the same Judge recalling the earlier order entertained the bail petitions and ordered to release the accused. The Apex Court set aside the order and laid down the principle that the long standing convention and judicial discipline required that the bail application of the accused should have been placed before the Same Judge who had earlier passed the order.
5. 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:
".... a person accused of non-bailable offence cannot claim bail as of right and the question of grant of bail to such a person is left by the legislature in the Court's discretion to be exercised on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of a given case. The discretion has, of course, to be judicial one 'informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in social life."
(Emphasis supplied) In the case of Daini alias Raju Vs. State of M.P., 1989 JLJ 323, Hon'ble Shri Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) referring various judgments emphasized the discipline of the system as thus :-
"(i) in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra), a subsequent application for bail in the same jurisdiction, must be placed before the same Judge (so long as he is available) before whom had come up the earlier application, with whatever result;
(ii) a subsequent application for bail must mention all the earlier or pending attempts to that and made before the High Court as well as the Court of Session along with their fate;
(iii) while moving an application for bail before the High Court, the application ought ordinarily to be accompanied by the order of the Court of Session rejecting the first prayer for bail and containing reasons, unless dispensed with;
(iv) a bail petition is expected to incorporation a statement as to all facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in support of his prayer so that whatever is put forth before the Court does not vanish in thin air, but is retained in the record, though there is no format prescribed for bail applications; if any statement is likely to be controverted by the opposite party, the party would do well to support its statement by an affidavit or documents, as advised."
(Emphasis supplied)
6. In the matter of an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, the issue with respect to cancellation of the bail, granted by the Trial Court despite rejection by the High Court has come up for consideration in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bardanilal Ahirwar, 2006 (3) MPHT 36 and the Court referring various judgments held that when the material fact regarding rejection of the bail by the High Court has been meaningfully suppressed then in the interest of justice and to curb the tendency of hoodwinking the Courts, the bail granted to the non-applicant should be cancelled.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Smt Bimla Devi V. State of Bihar and others, 1994 CRI.L.J. 638, referring the judgment of Shahzad Hasan Khan (supra) has observed that after rejection of the bail petition by the High Court, the Magistrate cannot grant the bail as it affects the principle of judicial discipline and observed as under:-
"2. In view of the fact that the Judicial Magistrate at a later stage has himself cancelled the bail, it is not necessary for us to pass any order with regard to the petitioner's prayer for cancellation of bail but the disturbing feature of the case is that though two successive applications of the accused for grant of bail were rejected by the High Court yet the learned Magistrate granted provisional bail. The course adopted by the learned Magistrate is not only contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and propriety but also contrary to the statutory provisions. See in this connection AIR 1987 SC 1613 : ( 1987 Cri LJ 1872). The manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case can give rise to the apprehensions which were expressed by the complainant in her complaint, which was treated by this Court as a writ petition and is being dealt with as such. In the course that we are adopting, we would not like to comment upon the manner in which the learned Magistrate dealt with the case any more at this stage. We in the facts and circumstances stated above, direct that a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court for taking such action on the administrative side as may be deemed fit by him."
8. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that the subsequent bail petition filed before the High Court is required to be placed before the same Judge before whom the earlier bail petition was filed. After rejection of bail by the High Court, the subordinate Court should not oblige to entertain and grant the bail, if it is so it affects the judicial discipline. The subsequent bail petitions must mention all the earlier attempts made either before the subordinate court or before the High Court and their fate. The relevant orders ought to be produced before the Court considering the subsequent bail petitions. The bail petition is expected to incorporation a statement of all facts and circumstances considered relevant by the applicant in support of his prayer to apprise the correct facts. Setting forth such averments, may likely to give an opportunity to the opposite party to controvert it. In support of the said pleadings, the affidavit or the documents are also advised. The grant of bail in a non-bailable offence is a discretion which can be exercised judiciously based upon the methodized by analogy, disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity.
9. In the case of Dr. Jyotsana Pare, in reply to the notice for cancellation of bail, it is said that she is not well versed with the provisions of the criminal laws, procedure adopted to be followed in the Courts. It is said that she has acted as per the legal advise and information given and no act done by her with deliberate wrong, knowledge and information. Explaining the period of her custody, it is said that she is engaged in providing vocational training to hearing impaired children and resides with her widow mother after deserted by the husband at Bhopal. It is said that after the arrest, her friend Nidhi Shrivastava assisted bona fide upon the advise of the advocates Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Vipin Yadav who have informed that the Court was not inclined to grant the bail, however it was dismissed as not pressed without explaining the time of six months directed for renewal. It is further stated that upon the advise of the advocates, various Vakalatnamas were signed but the results thereto was not communicated to her. Thereafter, on the advise of Shri Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate, second bail petition was filed before the Trial Court attaching the affidavit of the mother who was unaware of the aforesaid facts and the cumbersome procedure and unaware regarding the legal impediments of the orders of the Court. Thus the applicant and her mother have acted with extreme bona fide, honesty and without any ill-will or ulterior motive, therefore the notice for cancellation of the bail may be dropped.
10. Shri Anil Khare, learned counsel representing Dr. Jyotsana Pare and Dr. Roop Kamal Pare contends that Dr. Jyotsana Pare was in custody and not having any contact with her mother Dr. Roop Kamal Pare, however the bail petitions filed before the High Court are directly on the instructions of Dr. Jyotsana Pare which were not in the knowledge of the mother Dr. Roop Kamal Pare. The affidavit filed by Dr. Roop Kamal Pare before the Trial Court is based on the advise of the advocate, and due to age, ill-health and lack of knowledge with bona fides, the information of rejection of other bail petitions by the High Court could not be supplied. It is submitted that after rejection of bail by this Court, charge of the lesser offence was framed by the Trial Court which is not punishable by death or life imprisonment, however enlarged her on bail on parity. Thus looking to the fact that the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail, the notice for cancellation of bail as well as the notice for initiation of contempt proceedings against his clients may be dropped.
11. After hearing Shri Anil Khare, Advocate and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that on 26.11.2010 the bail petition of Dr. Jyotsana Pare was dismissed by this Court after argument as not pressed with the direction to renew the prayer after six months. It is also not in dispute that this Court had not found parity with two accused persons, namely, Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena who were enlarged on bail on the same date by separate order. It is also not disputed that Dr. Jyotsana Pare has filed three successive bail petitions before this Court. The second bail petition (M.Cr.C No.1106/2011) was dismissed on 14.2.2011 with an observation that earlier bail petition (M.Cr.C. No.9557/2010) was dismissed as per order dated 26.11.2010 with a liberty to renew the prayer after six months, however it is not entertainable without any changed circumstances prior to the said period. Third bail petition M.Cr.C. No.2514/2011 was dismissed on 7.3.2011 for want of prosecution. The fourth bail petition M.Cr.C. No.3394/2011 was dismissed on 20.4.2011 with the observation that in view of the orders passed in earlier two bail petitions, applicant may file fresh bail petition after 26th of May, 2011. The subsequent three orders of the High Court have not been produced and suppressed before the Trial Court. If the order dated 20.4.2011 of M.Cr.C. No.3394/2011 would have been brought to the notice, that the bail petition of Dr. Jyotsana Pare can only be entertained after 26.5.2011, the Trial Court might have looked into the said fact. Thus without disclosing these facts and orders, the bail has been obtained, prior to 26.5.2011. The observation made by the Trial Court, having parity with Wahid Siddiqui and Firdaus @ Smt. Shikha against whom the charge under Section 420, 120-B and 411 of IPC has been framed similar to the accused, is of no substance as they were granted bail extending the benefit of Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C. due to non-filing of challan within the specified period and not on merits. Thus grant of bail by the Trial Court after rejection by the High Court is amounting to abuse of the process of Court. In view of the foregoing, the bail granted to accused-Dr. Jyotsana Pare is liable to be cancelled.
12. In reply to notice for cancellation of bail, accused Satish Babu Lodhi states that he is the student of B.Sc. Mathematics passed in the year 2004 and working in Axis Bank. He has good character and record and not made any mischievous effort before the Court during the period of service in the Bank. It is said that due to lack of knowledge of the proceeding before this Hon'ble Court which was prosecuted by the counsel on the advise of his father Brij Kishore Lodhi, however he has not committed any offence. The bail petitions before this Hon'ble Court as well as before the Trial Court have been filed simultaneously by lack of knowledge with bona fides.
13. Shri B.R.Koshta, Advocate representing Satish Babu Lodhi contends that the applicant was not aware regarding the niceties of the procedure adopted in the courts, therefore application filed by his client under the instructions of his father Brij Kishore Lodhi before the Trial Court during the pendency of the bail petition before this Court is based on the bona fides and lack of knowledge, however the notice for cancellation of the bail may be dropped.
14. After hearing Shri Koshta, counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Satish Babu Lodhi and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the first bail petition (M.Cr.C. No.10417/2010) filed before this Court was dismissed as not pressed after arguments on 26.11.2010, and this Court not found parity with the accused Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena. It is also not in dispute that on 21.2.2011 he has filed second bail petition (M.Cr.C. No.2214/2011) which remained pending for one reason or the other. During the pendency of the said bail petition, he has filed another bail petition before the Sessions Court on 16.5.2011 stating the fact in para 3 that it is his second bail application and no application has been decided or pending in the High Court. In fact, his bail petition was already rejected and one application was pending. Thus during the pendency of M.Cr.C. No.2214/2011, he was enlarged on bail on 18.5.2011. The Trial Court allowed the bail on the ground of parity with Wahid Siddiqui and Firdaus @ smt.Shikha against whom the similar charge under Sections 420, 120-B and 411 of IPC has been framed. The parity also do not exist because the said two accused persons were granted bail giving the benefit of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. due to non-filing of challan within the specified period. Thus the grant of bail by the Trial Court after rejection and during pendency of bail petition before the High Court is amounting to abuse of the process of Court. In view of the foregoing, the bail granted to accused-Satish Babu Lodhi is liable to be cancelled.
15. In reply filed by accused-Anil Kumar Gupta, it is stated that he is the Doctor in Archeology and Architecture and served as the visiting Professor in Maulana Azad National Institute of Bhopal since 1990. His name was unnecessarily dragged in the police report after eight months of occurrence. The grant of bail to a citizen is a right and refusal is exception. It is said that pre-trial detention is not favoured and does not command any one. It is said that after rejection of the first bail petition by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, M.Cr.C. No.9772/2010 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court. On filing the challan and framing of charge on 21.2.2011 of a lesser sentence, applicant has filed bail petition on 28.2.2011, which was allowed as the offence was not punishable with death or life imprisonment and also on parity by giving sound reason in support of the bail order. In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to drop the notice for cancellation of the bail.
16. After hearing the accused- Anil Kumar Gupta and on perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that his bail petition was analogously heard by this Court on 26.11.2010, and no parity was found, however after argument the counsel has not pressed his bail petition, therefore dismissed. On his behalf an application has been filed by the Advocate Mr. M.P. Acharya on 28.2.2011 which was not the date fixed in the Trial Court. The trial was fixed on 21.2.2011 and the next date was 5.3.2011. Along with the bail petition urgent hearing application was also not filed. The bail petition is also not supported by an affidavit. The Judge has granted bail on the same day i.e. 28.2.2011 on the ground of parity with Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena. In fact, this Court not found parity in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta with Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena while hearing his bail petition analogously, therefore his counsel has not pressed his bail petition on 26.11.2010. Thus, after rejection of the bail by the High Court allowing subsequent bail petition by the Trial Court on the ground of parity is amounting to abuse of the process of the Court. In the application information as supplied by the advocate was also incomplete. In that view of the matter, the bail granted to accused Anil Kumar Gupta is liable to be cancelled.
17. The information supplied before the Sessions Judge on affidavit was incorrect or incomplete, it may amounting to obstruct and interfere in the administration of justice. In this context the Apex Court in the case of Dhananjay Sharma V. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1995 SC 1795 observed that the swearing of false affidavit in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. It has further been observed that the due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as a witness. If such attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, it commits criminal contempt of the court and liable to be dealt with in accordance with the law.
18. In the case of Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421, their Lordships of the Apex Court have emphasized that furnishing a forged or fabricated document is amounting to playing fraud with the court with oblique motive of deceiving or defrauding the court. In the case of U.P. Resi. Emp. Co- op. House B. Society and others Vs. New Okhla Indus. Deve. Authority and another, AIR 2003 SC 2723 their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that filing of false affidavit in court amounts to contempt of Court. In view of the said legal position, the conduct of the deponent swearing the affidavit and the advocates appeared on behalf of the accused persons is required to be discussed.
19. In the case of Dr. Jyotsana Pare while filing the bail petition before the Sessions Court on 9.5.2011, it is stated that
MCRC No.9557/2010 has been withdrawn with liberty to file after six months and thereafter no application was filed. While mentioning the said, to calculate the period of six months the date of dismissal of bail petition by this Court was not specified. After dismissal of the MCRC No.9557/2010, three successive MCRCs were filed before the High Court which were dismissed, and in the fourth MCRC it was specifically directed that the bail petition can be entertained after 26.5.2011 only. However, intentionally the said orders were not produced otherwise the bail petition of Dr. Jyotsana Pare could not be entertained by the Trial Court prior to 26.5.2011. Thus in the bail petition incorrect facts have been mentioned swearing an affidavit by Dr. Roop Kamal Pare to the contents of the bail petition. The contention of Shri Anil Khare, counsel representing her does not seem to be plausible showing it to be merely a mistake due to age, illness, lack of communication and under the directions of the advocates. If the orders passed by this Court would have been produced or mentioned, the chance to get the bail of her daughter might be more slender. Such an act may fall within the purview of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which separate proceedings be drawn.
20. In the case of accused-Satish Babu Lodhi, the second bail petition was filed before the Sessions Judge on 16.5.2011 while his second bail petition (M.Cr.C. No.2214/2011) was pending before the High Court. In para 3 of the said application it was mentioned that "the bail petition is neither decided nor pending in the High Court". In support of the said contention, affidavit of Brij Kishore Lodhi has been filed stating that the facts stated in the application are true and correct. Such act may fall within the purview of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which separate proceedings be drawn. Even after issuance of the notice Brij Kishore Lodhi has not appeared, however notice for his appearance in the separate proceedings be issued by the Registry.
21. In the case of Satish Babu Lodhi, Mr. V.P.Singh, Advocate representing him has filed the bail petition (M.Cr.C. No.2214/2011) before the High Court on 21.2.2011. During the pendency of the said bail petition, he has filed second bail petition on his behalf on 16.5.2011 before the Sessions Court. He has appeared in the Sessions Court without disclosing that the bail petition of Satish Babu Lodhi is pending in the High Court. After allowing bail by the Trial Court on 18.5.2011, Mr. V.P. Singh Advocate has filed I.A. No.10860/2011 seeking withdrawal of the bail petition before this Court on the pretext that on account of change of counsel, he is having no instructions to appear and argue the case. The reply to the notice for initiation of contempt has not been filed but some documents have been filed stating the fact that in the bail petition written by his own hand writing, the fact regarding pendency of the petition before the High Court was written but the typist has not typed it. The perusal of the documents in original, it reveals that it has been prepared after issuance of the notice, otherwise the advocate prior to put his signature on bail petition may verify the said facts. Thus the defence as put forth appears to be non-plausible at this stage. In view of the foregoing, the act of Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate may come within the purview of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which separate proceedings be drawn.
22. In the case of Anil Kumar Gupta, the second bail petition has been filed by Mr. M.P. Acharya, Advocate on 28.2.2011 by his own signature. In para 1 very designedly it was mentioned by him that "it is second bail petition before the Hon'ble Session Court and none other is pending before the High Court or other Court". In fact, in the said paragraph it should have been mentioned that first bail petition (MCRC No.9772/2010) was filed before the High Court and it was dismissed after argument as not pressed. In para 6 it has been mentioned that "the challan has been filed on 16.11.2010, earlier application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 8.9.2010 and bail application before Hon'ble High Court has been fixed on 26.11.2010". Shri M.P. Acharya, Advocate contends that, in fact it is not the word "fixed" but it is the word "pressed", however there is no concealment. If it is accepted even then he insisted to the Judge to hear the case on the same date without applying for urgent hearing and filing an affidavit for verification to the said facts. Relying upon the statement of the advocate having a long standing regarding parity with Amol Sheorey and Vikas Saxena, the Judge granted bail on the same date, which was factually incorrect. In fact, this was a point of time of mistake, therefore successive bail petitions of the accused Satish Babu Lodhi and Dr. Jyotsana Pare were granted later. This appears to be the turning point, which totally rests upon the conduct of Mr. M.P. Acharya, Advocate. However, such act may fall within the purview of criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which separate proceedings may be drawn.
23. On going through the complete record of the Sessions Trial, the role of the prosecutor who appeared before the Trial Court is also not very fair. If any bail petition is filed, a liberty to object or controvert the facts is available to the prosecutor, however it is his duty to bring into the knowledge of the Court that the bail petition filed by the accused person has been rejected by the High Court and it cannot be entertained by the subordinate court. Neither the fact of rejection of the bail by the High Court has been brought into the knowledge nor such objection has been raised by him. The officer assisting the prosecutor in trial is equally responsible for not disclosing such facts, however, the Home Department and Law Department are required to look into the matter how much effectively their officers are working and assisting the court and if so advised, action may be taken for fair administration of justice and to curb such tendency in future.
24. It is necessary to observe here that after taking a serious note of the conduct of the accused persons, advocates and the Judge, the parties have continued to play fraud with the court which is apparent from the order-sheets of the Trial Court dated 1.8.2011. After issuance of notice for cancellation of bail and to file reply why the contempt proceedings be not initiated, the applications to obtain certified copies were filed before the Trial Court bearing No.14914/2011, 14588/2011, 15495/2011 and 15695/2011 by the accused, Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Anil Kumar Gupta and Satish Babu Lodhi. Accordingly the file was sent to Certified Copy Section. When it was received back by the Reader of the Court, he found that in the bail petition of Satish Babu Lodhi the word "pending" was tried to be scored out. The Judge has called the Head Copyist and shown it in the Court and thereafter reported the matter to the District & Sessions Judge. In the opinion of this Court, it is a very serious matter and a discrete enquiry is required to be made by the District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur and to submit a fact finding report to the High Court through the Registrar General.
25. In this era, a tendency has developed in the minds of the citizens to become rich, brushing aside the morals without hard work at the earliest. In the instant case which is known as 'Apex Bank Ghautala case', the king pin co-accused Kshitij Dubey, an officer of the Bank, with the help of other accused persons, the public money of Rs.50.00 crore transmitted from Apex Bank to Axis Bank, for investment has been mis-utilized, committing forgery by creating a company in the name of his wife along with other officers of the Bank who are the Directors. By the indulgence of the Income Tax Department, such forgery could be traced out. How far the prosecution has acted fairly in investigation, assisting to the public prosecutor and the court is a matter of concern for the executives i.e. Home Department and Law Department but how far the accused persons and the advocates assisting them have made an endeavour to play with the judicial system, it is a matter of concern for the High Court. The majesty of the court should remain unimpeached, it may not be allowed to fade adopting the tactics to furnish the incorrect information on an affidavit in judicial proceeding. Such tendency causes obstruction in due course of judicial proceeding and not in fair administration of justice. In the present case, despite issuance of the proposed action of cancellation of bail and initiation of the contempt proceedings, the concerned persons made an endeavour to defraud the court by scoring out the words mentioned in the bail petition for which a serious note has been taken. Thus for upliftment of the system on which the society inspire trust and confidence and looking forward for fair administration of justice, certain directions to wake up the society are necessary which are being issued in succeeding paragraphs.
26. In the foregoing facts, it is apparent that the bail petitions of accused persons, namely, Dr. Jyotsana Pare, Anil Kumar Gupta and Satish Babu Lodhi have been allowed by the Trial Court is amounting to abuse of process of the Court. The said orders are also based upon non-furnishing the relevant orders, supply of incorrect information on the affidavit. Such hoodwinking cannot be permitted on the insistence of the accused persons and by their advocates, therefore the bail granted by the Trial Court to these accused persons vide orders dated 28.2.2011, 11.5.2011 and 18.5.2011 is hereby cancelled. The accused persons are present in the Court, however the Registrar is directed to take them into police custody for their production before the Trial Court. On production the Trial Court shall send them jail after preparing the jail warrants. It is made clear here that the said cancellation would not continue by way of stigma if they renew the prayer after incarceration of further three months and the applicants may be at liberty to file a fresh petition before this Court which may be considered without drawing any adverse inference against them.
27. In view of the discussion made herein above, it is further apparent that Dr. Roop Kamal Pare, Brij Kishore Lodhi and Mr. M.P. Acharya, Advocate have not furnished correct information to the Court as expected and required by law. Similarly in the case of Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate who has furnished the incorrect information as discussed herein above and appeared before the High Court and Trial Court without disclosing the fact of pendency of the bail petition. Such an act is amounting to criminal contempt under Section 2(c)(ii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for which separate common proceedings be drawn against all the aforesaid four persons. The Principal Registrar (Judicial) shall take steps to register common contempt proceedings separately and shall place the relevant orders, reply and documents filed by the parties in the record of the contempt case. As per provisions contained in Chapter-IV Rule (4) clause(10) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, the criminal contempt is required to be heard by the Division Bench, however, it is referred accordingly.
28. In view of the serious note made by the court regarding manipulation in the record, as discussed in paragraph No.24, it is directed that the District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur shall hold a discrete enquiry in the matter and the fact finding report regarding the persons who are guilty in scoring out the record of bail petition be submitted through Registrar General to the Division Bench hearing the contempt petition within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
29. The Registrar General is requested to send the copy of this order to the Home Department and the Law Department in view of the discussions made in paragraph No.23 and a copy of this order be also sent to the District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for further action. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, M.P. State Bar Council in continuation to earlier order dated 20.7.2011.
(J. K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE
Comments