Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paul Prabhudas Dupare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605
1 MCRC-29973-2025
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. 29973 of 2025
PAUL PRABHUDAS DUPARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Brian D Silva - Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Dilraj -
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Prashant Singh - Advocate General with Shri B.D. Singh -
Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Geet Sukhwani - Advocate for respondent No.2/objector.
ORDER
This is first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of
BNSS filed on behalf of the applicant apprehending his arrest 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 punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471
read with Section 120-B of IPC.
2. As per prosecution it is alleged that applicant who is the Bishop
of Jabalpur Diocese in connivance with co-accused the then Bishop P.C.
Singh fraudulently transferred the sum of Rs.2,45,30,830/- which was
received as compensation for acquisition from Railways, in the account
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605
2 MCRC-29973-2025
of Board of Education, Jabalpur whereas the same ought to have been
deposited in NDTA, Nagpur's account. Therefore, aforesaid offences
have been registered against the applicant.
3. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is
submitted that the applicant was transferred from the Diocese of Nagpur
on 26.06.2019 to the Diocese of Pune and at the time of transfer handed
over the charge to the one, Bishop Sharad Gaikwad and became the
Bishop of Nagpur as well as the Ex- Officio Chairperson of the NDTA.
Applicant at the alleged time of crime was neither the Bishop of Nagpur
nor the Ex- Officio Chairperson of the NDTA. Applicant is neither the
signatory of the account in which the amount of compensation has been
received nor a signatory of the account in which the amount of
compensation was further transferred. It is alleged that applicant has
carried out the exercise of receiving compensation on the basis of Power
of Attorney issued by the applicant whereas the Power of Attorney was
not issued by applicant but was issued by the decision taken by the
Management Committee of NDTA vide Resolution No. NDTA MO
2108:11. It is further submitted that applicant is not the beneficiary of
the said compensation amount. Offence under Sections 406, 467, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the applicant.
He is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Agency. Therefore, it is
prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605
3 MCRC-29973-2025
counsel for the objector have vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that applicant is also one of the beneficiaries of the said
compensation amount. Co-accused P.C. Singh has carried out
the exercise of receiving compensation on the basis of Power of
Attorney issued on the instructions given by the present applicant. It is
submitted that Param Jyoti - Honorary Secretary of NDTA has stated in
his statement that he has send the Power of Attorney to the co-accused
P.C. Singh on the instruction given by the present applicant who was the
Chairman of NDTA and it is also stated that the said Power of Attorney
was sent on 06.03.2018 whereas the Power of Attorney had expired in
the year 2016. It is further submitted that applicant was in contact with
co-accused P.C. Singh. There is one criminal antecedent of the applicant
bearing Crime No.455/2019 registered at Police Station - Sadar, District
Nagpur (MH) under Section 409 of IPC. Huge of embezzlement is
involved in this case. Named FIR has been lodged against the applicant.
Custodial interrogation is required from the applicant. Reliance has been
placed in the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of
Sheoraphuli Kancha Sabzee Babsayee Samity and Another Vs. State of
West Bengal and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 420 and in
the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla
University, Bhopal and Another reported in ILR (2011) MP 1692 .
Therefore, it is prayed for rejection of this bail application.
5. Perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.
6 . Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:35605
4 MCRC-29973-2025
well as seriousness of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit
of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Hence, this MCRC stands
dismissed.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
shahina
