It can also safely be said that merely because no overt act was attributed to the respondent accused in the First Information Report the same cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail to these respondents in a serious offence under Section 302 of IPC. Time and again, it is observed by this Court that First Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of facts. An FIR is a starter point to set the investigation in motion and subsequently, the investigating agency collects the necessary material in the course of investigation so as to unearth the real offenders. {Para 16}
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._2573_OF 2025
AASHISH YADAV Vs YASHPAL & ORS.
Author: PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 666.
1. Leave granted
2. The present appeal arises from the Impugned Order dated
23/08/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.6946 of
2024, wherein the High Court allowed the bail application of the
accused respondents on basis of parity observing that the other
two co-accused in the case had already been granted bail on the
same set of allegations. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has
preferred the present appeal.
3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under-
It is the case of the Prosecution that on 28.11.2023 during a
marriage procession, the accused respondents got into a fight
with the victim, Aman Yadav, during which one person named
Vicky @ Kartoos fired seven rounds of bullets out of which one hit
the victim killing him, and the remaining bullets hit two other
people, Vikash and Naveen at the procession gravely injuring
them. Immediately after, the accused respondents and Vicky @
Kartoos fled the location in a car. Following the incident, FIR
No. 489/2023 was registered on 29.11.2023 at Kotkasim Police
Station, District Khairthlal, Tijara, Rajasthan under Sections
143, 341, 323, 307, 302 the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and
Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 19592 wherein it was alleged
that in furtherance of an existing enmity with the victim, the
accused respondents hired the contract Killer, Vicky @ Kartoos,
to kill the victim and that he was killed in a planned and pre-
1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)
2 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arms Act’)
meditated manner in the middle of a marriage procession. It is
also mentioned in the FIR that Yashpal, Raman and their family
had been harbouring a grudge against Aman Yadav ever since an
argument took place at a well worship ceremony in the village on
19.11.2023.
4. During Investigation, three eyewitnesses were examined out
of which two were injured by the bullets fired. The statements
given by all the three eyewitnesses were consistent and converged
to confirm the incident. Further, based on the information given
by Vickky @ Kartoos in his statement under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act,1872 the pistol/weapon from which shots
were fired was recovered from the house of accused respondent
No. 1. He also identified the location where the test shots were
fired. Chargesheet was filed after completion of the investigation
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC
and Sections 3, 25, 5, 27 of Arms Act before the Learned Trial
Court on 27.02.2024. The chargesheet kept investigation against
the Accused Respondents pending as they were absconding. In
the chargesheet reference to the accused respondents was made
as absconding accused.
5. On 04.03.2024, one of the co-accused, Kulwant, was
granted bail by the High Court observing that the main accused
in the matter are Yashpal, Raman and Vicky @ Kartoos. Another
co-accused Om Prakash was also granted bail by the High Court
on 19.03.2024 on the ground that another co-accused who is not
a main accused has been granted bail. Following the two bail
orders enlarging bail to the co-accused, the accused respondents
moved S.B Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
4459/2024 and S.B Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.4460/2024 which was dismissed by the High Court vide order
dated 29.04.2024 with liberty to surrender before the Ld. Trial
Court. Subsequently, the accused respondents surrendered
before the Trial Court on 14.5.2024 and were taken into custody.
6. After surrendering, first Bail Application No. 221.2024 was
moved by the accused respondents before the Trial Court which
was dismissed vide order dt. 29.05.2024. Supplementary
chargesheet No. 2 was filed under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302,
120B, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 25, 5, 27 of Arms
Act on 12.08.2024 wherein it was concluded that the accused
respondents are the mastermind behind conspiracy to kill the
victim.
7. A second Bail Application No. 6946/2024 was moved by the
accused respondents before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur
Bench where the High Court vide order dt. 23.08.2024 allowed
the bail applications of the accused respondents observing that -
“5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned
counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that injured
Vikas and Naveen, in their statements recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. have levelled allegations of causing fire arm
injuries against Vicky @ Kartoos. The general omnibus
allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and the
co-accused Sandeep and Om Prakash, whom indulgence of
bail has already been granted by this Court. Looking to the
fact that the case of the petitioners is of Par with them and
they are in custody from the date of their arrest and after
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take
its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion
on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and
appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners under
Section 439 Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed and it is ordered that accused- petitioners Yashpal
S/o Deepak and Raman S/o Sanjay who are arrested in
connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail;
provided they both furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that
Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to
do so.”
8. Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner has filed the present
appeal before us.
Submissions
9. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the High
Court had earlier granted bail to the co-accused Kulwant,
Sandeep and Omprakash on the ground that they were not the
main accused who are the accused respondents herein. The
counsel submitted that the High Court now cannot grant bail to
the main accused respondents observing that the co-accused
have been granted bail in the matter already. It is submitted that
the case of respondents is very different from that of the coaccused.
The accused respondents are the mastermind behind
the conspiracy to kill the victim and the same is established from
the fact that on 19.11.2023 and 20.11.2023 there was serious
fight between respondent accused and victim in which
respondent accused gave life threats to the victim. It is also
submitted that Vicky @ Kartoos is a contract killer/sharpshooter
and has numerous cases against him and is a history sheeter
wanted in various offences. It is further submitted that the
accused respondents were absconding for six months and thus
there is real apprehension that enlarging them on bail would lead
the accused respondents to abscond again.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have
submitted that there has been a delay in filing the FIR and
additionally the complainant is not an eyewitness to the incident
either. It is submitted that the statements of the eyewitnesses
only indicate that it was a case of sudden fight and was not a
planned conspiracy against anyone. The counsel has further
submitted that there is no material on record to show and
establish common intention of formation of unlawful assembly by
the accused respondents.
Analysis
11. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as
Ld. Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant
documents on record and the judgment passed by the High
Court.
12. We do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf
of the accused respondents whose bail application was allowed
holding that no material against the accused person is available
and there is nothing on record to show that the accused
respondents actively participated in the act of firing the bullet.
13. We are of the opinion that the contention that there is no
material to the effect to indicate that they were involved in
hatching the conspiracy is an aspect to be considered by the
court by conducting a full-fledged trial. Sufficient material is
available on record to show that these two accused engaged the
contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos to kill Aman. Even as per the FIR,
it is mentioned that Vicky @ Kartoos is a sharp shooter who used
a firearm to fire bullets during the marriage procession wherein
one victim namely Aman died, and two others namely Vikas and
Naveen were gravely injured whose witness statement has also
been recorded.
14. The submission of the respondents that the accused
persons were only involved in a case of sudden fight cannot be
accepted as the FIR clearly states that the accused were waiting
for some reason so that the hired contract killer could get an
opportunity to shoot the victim. As per the FIR, the sharpshooter
Vicky @ Kartoos and other persons were dancing in the marriage
procession when on a trifle issue they suddenly picked a quarrel
with the victim and the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos
immediately fired. Also, material on record reveals that before
shooting the victim, the contract killer also conducted a trial
shoot by firing his pistol into the air.
15. On the contrary, we find considerable merit in the
submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the High
Court committed a serious error in holding and observing that
the case of the respondents is at par with the case of other coaccused
namely Sandeep and Omprakash. In so far as, the order
granting bail to accused Omprakash is concerned, it was
observed in the order dated 19.03.2024 by the learned Judge,
that specific allegations have been assigned to co-accused
Yasphal, Raman and Vicky @ Kartoos. Another consideration
was the age of Omprakash wherein the submission advanced
before the learned Judge in respect of the age of Omprakash was
accepted and it was observed that the petitioner i.e. Omprakash
is an old infirm person of 84 years of age.
16. It can also safely be said that merely because no overt act
was attributed to the respondent accused in the First Information
Report the same cannot be the sole consideration for grant of bail
to these respondents in a serious offence under Section 302 of
IPC. Time and again, it is observed by this Court that First
Information Report is not an encyclopaedia of facts. An FIR is a
starter point to set the investigation in motion and subsequently,
the investigating agency collects the necessary material in the
course of investigation so as to unearth the real offenders. In the
present case also, in the course of investigation, the material
collected by the investigating agency suggested that the
respondent accused persons hatched a conspiracy so as to
eliminate the victim and engaged a contract killer Vicky @
Kartoos to kill the victim Aman. We are unable to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that it was
a sudden fight in the marriage procession that led to opening of
firearm and shooting the victim. The material collected by the
investigating agency in the form of statement of witnesses show
that the respondent accused who have engaged a contract killer
Vicky @ Kartoos were waiting for an opportune time so that they
can use the hired contract killer to eliminate victim Aman.
17. It is also reflected from the material, that before the actual
incident of shooting victim Aman, the contract killer Vicky @
Kartoos had opened the firearm for a test firing. The sequence of
events at the incident show that the marriage procession started
and some of the young boys started dancing in the procession.
Aman was also amongst them and while dancing the accused
respondent got into an argument with victim Aman and his
friends. Using this quarrel as an opportunity and as per the plan
hatched by the respondents, the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos
by using the firearm i.e. pistol, shot victim Aman, resulting in his
death and two other persons, Vikash and Naveen were also
injured. Their statements were also recorded by the investigating
agency. The investigating agency was successful in recovering
the weapon pistol from respondent no. 1. Admittedly, from the
day of arrest till filing of the first chargesheet wherein these
respondent accused were shown as absconding, the respondents
were successful in evading their arrest and subsequently when
the application for grant of bail was rejected these respondents
accused surrendered themselves to the Trial Court and then the
application for grant of bail was filed before the High Court.
18. It was also submitted before the Court that the contract
killer Vicky @ Kartoos is having criminal antecedents and is a
history sheeter. Thus, the apprehension of the complainant, that
the respondent accused, if released on bail may pressurise the
witnesses is not unjustified.
19. The complainant is also justified in making the submission
that as the trial is now in the process and key prosecution
witnesses are yet to be examined, there exists a reasonable
apprehension that if these accused persons are granted bail, then
they may attempt to pressurise or influence the witnesses or even
abscond.
20. The High Court therefore failed to consider these above
grounds and has mechanically passed the order and allowed the
appeal. The order of grant of bail to accused on parity is error
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court failed to
consider that the accused are the main accused in the matter
and cannot be enlarged on bail because the other co-accused
persons have been granted bail. The High Court order granting
bail to the accused respondents is hereby set aside. Accordingly,
the present appeal is allowed.
21. The respondents are directed to surrender themselves to the
concerned authority not later than two weeks from today.
22. Observations, in this judgment are only for the purpose of
setting aside the bail order. The Trial Court is directed to decide
the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by the observations in
this judgment.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.................................J.
[K.V. VISWANATHAN]
.….............................J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2025.
No comments:
Post a Comment