Tej Singh Bhee vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Pradeep Mittal, J

This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2025 registered at Police Station - Cyber and High Tech Crimes, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(4), 319(2), 339, 340(2), 338, 318(4), 318(2), 336(4) of the BNS and Section 43,66,66-C, 66- D of the Information Technology Act. Sections 111, 238, 241, and 61 of the BNS and Sections 35,36 and 42 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act and Sections 3, 4 of the Pariksha Adhiniyam. The first bail application, being M.Cr.C. No. 57238 of 2025, was rejected by this Court on 05.01.2026 after considering the application on merits.

As per the prosecution story, Petitioner was a candidate in the constable recruitment examination who by manipulating and uploading the Aadhar details on multiple occasions had made someone else impersonate him and sit in the examination on his behalf. On the basis of which, the offence has been registered against the present applicant under the aforesaid sections.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. That in FIR No. 10/2025 registered at P.S. Satanvada, District Shivupri, concerning the same/similar set of allegations, i.e. alleged tampering of Aadhaar biometrics and impersonation during recruitment examination. That in the said FIR, the applicant was arrested and thereafter granted regular bail by this court, Bench at Gwalior vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in M.Cr. C. No. 36042 of 2025. That despite the allegations being identical and arising out of the same alleged cause of action, the prosecution has registered multiple FIRs for the same occurrence, which is impermissible in law and on the above ground the applicant seeks anticipatory bail for the aforesaid offence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for State has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the offence punishable under Sections 35, 36 and 42 of the Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act was not registered against the present applicant on the previous occasion, therefore, his custodial interrogation is required to find out the truth.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that this Court has granted bail to the co-accused persons in M.Cr.C. No. 45336 of 2025 vide order dated 12.11.2025, M.Cr.C. No. 45809 of 2025 vide order dated 12.11.2025, M.Cr.C. No. 46745 of 2025 vide order dated 12.11.2025, and other co-accused; therefore, it is prayed that the present application be allowed on the ground of parity.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

A bail order cannot be treated as a precedent in other cases, even if the offence is similar. It is a settled principle that bail decisions depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right when the roles of the accused are different. Therefore, the present application is not acceptable on the ground of parity. Further, although an accused may file a subsequent anticipatory bail application, he must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the rejection of the earlier application. All the facts had already been considered while deciding the first bail application. In the present case, there is no change in circumstances. Therefore, no case is made out for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail, and the second bail application is liable to be rejected as the custodial interrogation is imperative to unravel the alleged conspiracy and discover the roles of the co-accused.

Consequently, this MCRC stands dismissed.