Shivam Alias Gulli Tomar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Milind Ramesh Phadke, J

This is second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS filed by the applicant for grant of bail. His first bail application was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh application after the examination of the complete statements of the complainant before the Trial Court vide order dated 13.11.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.48530 of 2025 by this Court.

The applicant has been arrested on 18.02.2025 in connection with Crime No.65/2025 registered at Police Station-Kotwali District Bhind for offence punishable under Sections 309(4), 296, 3(5), 125 of BNS and 11/13 MPDVPK Act and Section 27 of Arms Act.

As per the prosecution story, on 01.02.2025 at about 7:00 p.m., the complainant Anand Soni was performing evening prayers in his jewellery shop after opening his locker, when three unknown persons arrived on a motorcycle. One of them allegedly placed a country-made pistol in the mouth of the complainant and demanded valuables, while the other two removed silver and gold ornaments along with cash and fled away after firing from the weapon.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no direct or indirect connection with the alleged offence. The incident is stated to have occurred at about 7:00 p.m. on 01.02.2025, whereas the First Information Report was lodged after an unexplained delay at 02:45 a.m. on 02.02.2025, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and during the test identification parade, the complainant failed to identify the applicant, clearly demonstrating that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to mistaken identity. Learned counsel submits that the role attributed to the present applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, namely Anshu Shrivas and Mohit Tomar alias Rocky, who have already been granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.C.Nos. 2596 of 2026 and 577 of 2026 vide order dated 19.1.2026 and 13.1.2026. On the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to the benefit of bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State does not dispute the factum of parity as canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant but submitted that applicant is having criminal history of 9 cases.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations and particularly the ground of parity with co-accused, coupled with the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future and prolonged pre- trial detention being an anathema to the concept of liberty, 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.

This order will remain operative 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;

4 . 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.