P C Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2340 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

P C Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025

         NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605




                                                            1                         MCRC-22847-2025
                             IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                   AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
                                                 ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2025
                                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22847 of 2025
                                                        P C SINGH
                                                          Versus
                                              THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                           Appearance:
                                  Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate with Shri Harjas Singh
                           Chhabra - Advocate for the applicant.
                                  Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri B.D. Singh -
                           Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1/State.
                                  Shri Geet Sukhwani - Advocate for the respondent No.2/objector.

                                                            ORDER

This is first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed on behalf of the applicant for the offences registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing (EOW) Jabalpur Unit (M.P.) bearing Crime No.82/2025 registered by EOW Jabalpur Unit under Sections 406, 420,

120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Applicant is in custody since 05.05.2025.

2 . As per prosecution it is alleged that applicant who was the previous Bishop of Jabalpur Diocese in connivance with co-accused Bishop Paul Daupare fraudulently transferred the sum of Rs.2,45,30,830/- which was received as compensation for acquisition

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

2 MCRC-22847-2025 from Railways, in the account of Board of Education, Jabalpur whereas the same ought to have been deposited in Nagpur Diocese Trust Association (hereinafter referred to as NDTA), Nagpur's account. Therefore, aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and other co-accused.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in custody since 05.05.2025. It is submitted that the compensation amount so received in the account maintained at Indian Overseas Bank bearing Account No.7901 at Jabalpur was an account which was opened with authorization by NDTA, Nagpur. In a previous Crime No.80/22 registered by EOW itself, they have themselves brought

documents which show that the Account No. 7901 at Indian Overseas Bank, Jabalpur was opened way back in the year 1978, after due approval and on the directions of NDTA, Nagpur. The said account was always jointly operated by the Bishop of Jabalpur Diocese and the Treasurer of Jabalpur Diocese. The said information was duly provided by the Secretary of Nagpur Diocese to EOW while investigating the previous crime number along with the resolution of 25.09.1978, which makes it clear that the account bearing No. 7901 at Indian Overseas Bank, Jabalpur was opened on the directions of NDTA, Nagpur. It is alleged that on 05.01.2021 a letter written by Neeta Jacob - Principal of Bardsley School was sent to the SDO for depositing the compensation amount on the bank account of NDTA in Indian Overseas Bank

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

3 MCRC-22847-2025 Jabalpur operated by Jabalpur Diocese without any knowledge of NDTA whereas the applicant has not made any written or oral communication directing Neeta Jacob - Principal to submit any reply. Even assuming all the allegation with regard to directing Neeta Jacob to submit a reply before the SDM is concerned are taking on face value then also no case is made out against the applicant inasmuch as the applicant was duly given a power of attorney of the year 2018 by NDTA, Nagpur. By the said power of attorney, the Bishop of Jabalpur Diocese and the Secretary of Jabalpur Diocese were given power to appear before all Courts including Revenue Courts, hence the question of submitting a reply in respect to the property under the Jabalpur Diocese cannot be questioned. It would further be relevant to mention that the concept of issuing power of attorneys to the Bishop of Jabalpur Diocese by NDTA, Nagpur for the properties under Jabalpur jurisdiction was going on for the past few decades. Further that, when the applicant was arrested on 05.05.2025 from Mangalore, Karnataka and produced before the Special Judge, (EOW), Jabalpur on 06.05.2025 for seeking police remand, the applicant through his counsel moved an application objecting the police remand on the ground that notice under Section 41- A Cr.P.C. was not served upon the applicant and the ground arrest was not communicated to the applicant, therefore arrest is illegal and applicant is entitled for grant of bail in support of this contention reliance has been placed Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and

Another (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

4 MCRC-22847-2025 No.13320/2024). It is further submitted that applicant has been prosecuted by the respondent agency by constant registration of FIRs. It is also submitted that compensation amount was used for school purpose. Applicant had no knowledge about registration of cases which had been registered against applicant. In one of the cases, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh vide final order dated 24.7.2015 passed in Cr.M.P. 458/2013 had quashed the Criminal case No.35/12. In this case, offence regarding forgery of documents is not made out against the applicant. Applicant is not the beneficiary in this case. No offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, is made out against the applicant. Reliance has been placed in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R. Jawaharaj and Another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581. Therefore, it is prayed to grant regular bail to the applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the objector have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that police did not register a suo moto case against the applicant but it was registered on the complaint made by Pravin Anil Sathe who is the Member of NDTA. Applicant is the beneficiary in this case. Applicant is a habitual offender and there are 60 criminal cases registered against him in different States of India namely, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Punjab and Haryana, in which most of the cases are of similar nature. Applicant was appointed as the Bishop of the Jabalpur

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

5 MCRC-22847-2025 Diocese and in disregard to the resolution dated 11.07.1977 in which it was resolved that all the accounts should be audited every year and the audited report be sent to NDTA but applicant did not audit the account since the year 2004. Applicant continued as the Bishop until the year 2022. It is also submitted that notice was given by SDO Katni to Neeta Jacob - Principal of Bardsley School regarding compensation of Rs.2.45 Crore for acquisition of 0.022 hectares of the said land and therefore Neeta Jacob - Principal of Bardsley School furnished the bank account number of the school to the SDO. Thereafter, applicant had made forged signature of Ms. Neeta Jacob - Principal on a letter dated 05.01.2021 in which he had furnished account number of Indian Overseas Bank Jabalpur operated by Jabalpur Diocese without any knowledge of NDTA and applicant sent the forged letter to the SDO and the said amount was deposited in the account furnished by the applicant and accused transferred the amount to the account of Board of Education Jabalpur Diocese. Complainant - Pravin Anil Sathe who is the Member of NDTA has made complaint against the applicant and other co- accused persons regarding the aforesaid fraud. Statement of Neeta Jacob

- Principal was recorded on 29.04.2025 under Section 180 of BNSS/Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that the said letter was not written by her. It is further submitted that during investigation statements of Pravin Anil Sathe (complainant) - Member of NDTA, Manjusha Stephenson - Secretary NDTA and Ajay James - Chairman Board of Education have been recorded in which they have

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

6 MCRC-22847-2025 stated against the applicant alleging that applicant had made forged letter and on the basis of the said letter applicant had received compensation amount. It is further submitted that ground of arrest was communicated to the applicant. Therefore, it is prayed for rejection of this bail application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. From perusal of record, it is found that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC but during investigation, it was found that letter dated 05.01.2021 was not signed by Neeta Jacob- Principal whereas the said letter is forged and signed by the present applicant and given to the SDO for obtaining compensation amount, therefore, offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of IPC were also added in the said crime. The offence registered under Section 467 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of life. It is pertinent to mention here that on the date of arrest of the applicant, Crime No.82/2025 was registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC. Even when the police arrested the applicant and produced him before the concerning Magistrate as well as in the arrest memo and remand paper, offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC were mentioned, therefore, it is clear that at the time of arrest of the applicant aforesaid sections were already added in the alleged crime, therefore,

there is no requirement of giving notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to the applicant.

7. It is also pertinent to mention here that trial Court vide its

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605

7 MCRC-22847-2025 impugned order dated 07.05.2025, mentioned that son of the applicant had been informed about arrest of the applicant and in the case diary dated 06.05.2025, it is mentioned that applicant has been arrested before his son Piyush Paul Singh and witness Prashant Agrawal and applicant has been communicated the reason/ground of his arrest. In this case, allegation against the applicant is of obtaining compensation amount by preparing forged documents. Applicant is having sixty criminal antecedents registered against him in different States of India in which most of the cases are of similar nature.

8. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Hence, this MCRC stands dismissed.

(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL) JUDGE

shahina