ELGIN R SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38266 of 2025

Elgin R Singh
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Namit Srivastava, Parul Srivastava,
                                Ronak Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vinay Kumar Patel, Yashwant Pratap
                                Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 68
                 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Namit
Srivastava and Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri
Vijendra Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the records. Sri
Vinay Kumar Patel has also been heard on behalf of the first informant.

The instant bail application on behalf of the applicant Elgin R. Singh seeks
his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 2556 of 2006 under Section 420,
467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City and District Bijnor during
the pendency of the trial before the trial court. The bail application of the
applicant before the trial court has been rejected by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor, vide order dated 12.09.2025 and the applicant is
stated to be languishing in jail since 08.09.2025.

Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant
vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives.

Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the subject matter of
the FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number is the properties of the
Methodist Church in India, a Society duly registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The Society was erstwhile known as The Executive
Board of the Methodist Church in Southern Asia. The said Society stood
merged in Methodist Church in India and Methodist Church in India become
the Successor in interest to the Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern
Asia. A rival Society was set up by the informant in the name and style of
                                                        BAIL No. 38266 of 2025
                               2


Methodist Episcopal Church Southern Asia. The FIR in question was lodged
on 24.12.2006 nominating six persons including the applicant alleging that
the property situated in Mission Compound Civil Lines, Bijnor belonged to
Methodist Episcopal Church Southern Asia. The nominated persons by
creating a forged Power of Attorney (POA) in favour of the applicant got
executed a sale deed of land ad-measuring 1043.46 sq. mtrs. of the Societies
land in favour of the Narpal Singh and Dharampal Singh (both nominated
persons) for a meager amount of Rs. 20 Lacs whereas the property is worth
Crores of rupees. It was also alleged that the nominated persons in the past
also had sold the property of the Church on forged power of attorney and
case has been registered against them in Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.
It was also alleged in the FIR that the alienation of the properties of the
Methodist Episcopal Church was done in violation of directions of the High
Court and in violation of the Government orders and injunction orders.

Sri H. N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the
informant by moving an application on 08.10.2025 sought the renewal of the
defunct Society Methodist Episcopal Church Southern Asia. The renewal
was grated in 2007. The renewal of the alleged Society was cancelled vide
order dated 10.08.2007. The Appeal preferred by the informant against the
cancellation of the renewal was rejected vide order dated 19.08.2014. The
writ petition assailing the orders cancelling the renewal upheld in Appeal
was also rejected by the High Court vide order dated 17.10.2014. It is
argued that the existence of the Society Methodist Episcopal Church
Southern Asia having been held to be non-existent the very basis of the FIR
lodged on 24.12.2006 against the applicant is nothing but a malicious act. It
is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that the Managing Committee of
Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India in consultation with the
sale committee of the Methodist Church in India held on 21.10.2005 took a
decision to sell out the property ad-measuring 1043.46 sq. mtrs. situated
behind Veil Boys Hostel Bijnor by the process of inviting tenders and the
sale deed was executed in favour of the highest bidder. The sale deed was
got executed through a special power of the Attorney in the name of the
Edgar Singh being the District Superintendent Bijnor and the applicant being
the Executive Secretary, jointly. The execution of the sale deed was duly
sanctioned by the Executive Board Methodist Church in India the rightful
owner of the properties. It has also been argued that the applicant and co-
accused Edgar Singh are not the beneficiaries of the sale proceeds inasmuch
                                                          BAIL No. 38266 of 2025
                                 3


as the sale consideration was paid by way of draft drawn in favour of the
Methodist Church in India. No amount of the consideration was transferred
into the personal bank account of the applicant. It is also argued that the
restrictions was not applicable to the land in question and the sale deed even
otherwise was got executed prior to the order aforesaid. It is also submitted
that the Government Order dated 10.08.2000 was not violated inasmuch as
previous permission was not required from the District Magistrate. It is also
submitted that till date the sale deed dated 20.12.2005 has not been
challenged. It is lastly argued that the applicant is a 72 years old man facing
several health issues. No offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is
made out against the applicant. The criminal antecedents of the applicant
have been explained in Para 48 of the bail application. The applicant is not a
flight risk and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the
liberty of bail if granted. hence prayer for bail has been made.

Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri Vinay Kumar Patel, learned counsel
for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail plea but could not dispute
the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the
records, I find that the case is essentially a civil dispute which has been
given criminal flavour by the Informant. Prima-facie, the applicant has acted
on the basis of valid authority and documents recognized within the Church
administration. No sinister purpose or element of criminality, dishonest
intention or fraudulent motive can be said to be attributed to the applicant.
The applicant is not a beneficiary of the alleged sale transaction. The sale
deed has not been challenged or declared void till date. In the opinion of the
Court, the applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the bail
application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Elgin R. Singh, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
                                                                                             BAIL No. 38266 of 2025
                                                                      4


                                    co-operate in the trial.

                                    4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
                                    trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
                                    the court concerned.

                                    In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
                                    will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

                                    April 21, 2026
                                    pks
                                                                                        (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad