Anuj Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, J

This is the second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail. He has been arrested on 27.05.2025 by Police Station Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.170 of 2025 registered in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 296, 191(2), 191(3), 190 BNS and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution story, the complainant, Aryan alias Om Tomar, lodged a report while undergoing treatment in the Trauma Centre Emergency Ward of J.A. Hospital, Gwalior to the effect that about one year ago, Nitin Tomar had stopped his motorcycle, come into his lane, and assaulted him, due to which enmity had been continuing between them since then. On 07.04.2025, Nitin, along with his associates, came in front of his house with intention of picking a quarrel; however, since his father was present at home, they fled from the spot. Thereafter, on 09.04.2025 at about 6:30 PM, the complainant and his elder brother Ajay Tomar were going to drink juice near Midaila Chungi. At that time, all the accused persons, forming an unlawful assembly and arriving on three motorcycles, namely, Suraj Tomar, Manu Tomar, and Abhishek Saini armed with pistols, and Nitin and Kisan Tomar armed with country-made pistols (kattas), along with Amandeep Tomar and three other unknown persons came there. On seeing them, they started abusing in filthy language and, with intention to kill, Suraj Tomar fired a gunshot from his pistol, which hit Ajay near his right ear. Suraj fired a second shot, which struck the back side of Ajay’s head, causing him to fall to the ground. When the complainant rushed to lift his brother, Abhishek Saini fired at him with intent to kill, and the gunshot struck him on the back side of his right hip, causing injury and bleeding. On his raising alarm, nearby persons including Lalla Tomar came to the spot. Thereupon, the co-accused Nitin Tomar, Manu Tomar, and Kisan Tomar also fired from their kattas and pistols, and one bullet struck Lalla Tomar in the leg, causing injury and bleeding. On hearing the gunfire and commotion, other residents of the locality also gathered, upon which all the accused persons fled from the spot while firing. Thereafter, the complainant and his elder brother Ajay were taken by their cousins Rohit and Mohit Tomar to Ambah Hospital for treatment. From Ambah Hospital, they were referred to Morena Hospital; however, the family directly took them to J.A. Hospital, Gwalior, where the doctor declared Ajay Tomar dead. His body was then taken home by the family, while the complainant was admitted for treatment. On the basis of the said report, Dehati Nalishi No. 0/2025 was registered under Sections 103(1), 109, 296, 191(2), 191(3), and 190 of the BNS, and subsequently FIR No. 170/2025 was registered at Police Station Ambah under the same sections. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. His earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026. Now, the changed in circumstance is that co-accused persons, namely, Ashish alias Lalla & Santosh alias Puccho have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench vide orders dated 06.02.2026 & 10.03.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.41753 & 10881 of 2025. It is contended that the name of the present applicant does not find place in the FIR or in the Dehati Nalishi and he has been subsequently implicated without any direct or indirect involvement in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that there is no specific overt act attributed to the present applicant in the entire prosecution story and he has not been alleged to have fired any shot or caused any injury either to the deceased Ajay Tomar or to any of the injured persons. The only allegation against the applicant is of his alleged presence at the place of incident, which by itself is insufficient to establish his involvement in the commission of such a serious offence. It is argued that the applicant has been roped in merely on the basis of suspicion and on account of previous enmity, and his name appears to have been introduced in the police statement with an afterthought to settle earlier disputes. It is also submitted that a cross FIR has been registered in connection with Crime No. 171/2025 at Police Station Ambah, District Morena for offences punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the BNS, wherein there are specific allegations against Aryan Tomar, the complainant of the present case, of causing a gunshot injury to Amandeep Tomar on his neck and also causing injuries to Abhishek by the butt of a pistol. This clearly indicates that the incident was a result of an altercation between both the parties which escalated into an exchange of fire, thereby making it a case of free fight. In such circumstances, it is argued that the applicability of Section 190 of the BNS is not attracted. Learned counsel further submits that as per the Panchanama prepared by the investigating agency on the basis of CCTV footage collected from the place of occurrence, no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant in the entire incident. This material, according to the prosecution itself, does not demonstrate the active participation of the applicant in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the case of the prosecution rests mainly on omnibus allegations made against a group of persons and there is no clear, cogent and reliable material to establish the presence and participation of the applicant at the spot. The investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 27.05.2025 and has already undergone a substantial period of incarceration. The trial is likely to take a long time for its conclusion and continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant is permanent resident of District Morena and there is no likelihood of his absconsion or tampering with the prosecution evidence. He is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as may be imposed. With the aforesaid submissions and on the ground of parity, prayer for grant of bail is made out.

Per conra, learned Public Prosecution for the State, duly supported by the counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is involved in a grave and heinous offence of murder committed in broad daylight. It is contended that the incident occurred as a result of a premeditated attack wherein the accused persons, including the present applicant, formed an unlawful assembly and came armed with deadly weapons with a clear intention to kill, and in furtherance of their common object, opposed indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of Ajay Tomar and injuries to other persons. It is further submitted that sufficient material has been collected during the course of investigation which prima facie establishes the involvement of the present applicant in the crime. The statements of witnesses as well as other evidence including CCTV footage collected by the prosecution clearly indicate his presence and participation in the incident. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, which is punishable with death or life imprisonment, it is argued that the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. It is further submitted that there is a strong likelihood that if the applicant is released on bail, he may influence or intimidate the complainant and other material witnesses, particularly in view of the previous enmity between the parties. There is also a possibility of the applicant absconding to evade the process of law. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations and the overall circumstances of the case, it is prayed that the bail application be rejected.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the material placed on record, this Court finds that the name of the present applicant does not find place in the FIR as well as there is no allegation that the applicant caused any gunshot injury to the deceased or to any of the injured persons, the role attributed to the applicant is limited in nature and primarily relates to his alleged presence at the spot. Further, the CCTV-based Panchanama, does not clearly demonstrate active participation of the applicant in the commission of the offence.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and coupled with the fact that the investigation has been completed, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre-trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty and also on the ground of praity, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court for his appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court, subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The applicant will not indulge themselves in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The applicant shall not commit any other offence during pendency of the trial, failing which this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically, without further reference to the Bench;

The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

Certified copy as per rules.