Mohit Singh Tomar @ Rocky vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is second bail application 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) filed by the applicant for grant of bail. His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28.08.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.34818/2025.

The applicant has been arrested on 02.02.2025 in connection with Crime No.12/2025 registered at Police Station- Ater District Bhind for offence punishable under Section 109, 132, 3(5) of BNS and section 25,27 of Arms Act.

According to the case, an incident dated 02.02.2025, occurred between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM, near the vicinity of a school on the Ater- Jaitpura road. It is alleged that the accused, with full knowledge that the members of the police force present at the scene were public servants engaged in the lawful discharge of their official duties, launched an attack upon them with the intent to deter them in the execution of their official duties. The accused, in furtherance of a common intention shared with coaccused persons, used criminal force and committed acts intended to cause grievous harm and even death. Pursuant to this common intention, and with the knowledge and intent sufficient to cause death, the accused is alleged to have fired upon the said police officials using a country-made firearm ("katta"). Furthermore, the accused person was found to be in unauthorized possession of one country-made firearm of 315 bore with four live cartridges as well as one 12-bore country-made firearm with live ammunition, in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the present FIR has been registered.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after rejection of his first bail application co-accused Anshu Shrivas has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34249/2025, and the case of the present applicant stands on the same footing.

Learned counsel contends that there is parity between the present applicant and the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, as the role attributed to both is similar in nature, and no specific overt act has been alleged against the applicant which distinguishes his case from that of the co- accused.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application but does not dispute the fact that co-accused Anshu Shrivas has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.34249/2025 and the allegations against the said co-accused and present applicant are similar in nature.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the co-accused has already been granted bail and the allegations against the present applicant are not materially different. There is no distinguishing circumstance brought on record by the prosecution to deny the benefit of bail to the present applicant on the ground of parity.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the ground of parity with co-accused, and without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of bail. 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 their appearance on the dates given by the concerned Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-

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

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

iii. The applicant will not indulge himself 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;

iv. 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;

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

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

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.