Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from an order dated 23/08/2024 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, granting bail to the accused respondents Yashpal and Raman in connection with FIR No. 489/2023 registered under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 302 IPC and Sections 3, 25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case is that on 28/11/2023, during a marriage procession, the accused respondents, in furtherance of an existing enmity, hired a contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos to eliminate the victim Aman Yadav. The contract killer fired seven rounds, killing Aman and injuring two others, Vikash and Naveen. The accused respondents fled the scene and were absconding for about six months. During investigation, three eyewitnesses gave consistent statements, and the weapon was recovered from the house of accused respondent No. 1 based on information given by Vicky. A supplementary chargesheet concluded that the accused respondents were the masterminds behind the conspiracy. The High Court granted bail to the accused respondents on the ground of parity with co-accused Sandeep and Om Prakash, who had been granted bail earlier. The appellant, the informant, challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found merit in the appellant's submissions and held that the High Court committed a serious error in granting bail on parity. The Court noted that the co-accused Om Prakash was granted bail due to his old age (84 years) and that the earlier bail orders specifically identified Yashpal, Raman, and Vicky as the main accused. The Court emphasized that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts and that subsequent investigation revealed material showing the accused respondents' involvement in hatching the conspiracy. The Court rejected the respondents' submission that it was a sudden fight, observing that the contract killer had conducted a test firing and the accused were waiting for an opportune time. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the bail applications of the accused respondents.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail - Parity - Section 439 CrPC, Section 302 IPC - Grant of bail on parity requires similarity of role and involvement - High Court erred in granting bail to main accused (alleged masterminds) merely because co-accused with lesser roles were granted bail - Held that parity cannot be applied mechanically when the accused are alleged to be the conspirators and contract killers (Paras 15-16). B) Criminal Law - First Information Report - Evidentiary Value - Section 154 CrPC - FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts but a starting point for investigation - Subsequent investigation may reveal additional material against accused - Held that absence of overt act in FIR does not preclude consideration of material collected during investigation (Para 16). C) Criminal Law - Bail - Serious Offences - Section 302 IPC - In cases of murder by contract killing, the role of mastermind accused is distinct from that of other participants - Bail granted to co-accused on grounds of age or lack of direct role does not entitle the main accused to parity - Held that the High Court's order was perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 15-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused respondents on the ground of parity with co-accused, despite the accused respondents being alleged masterminds of the conspiracy to commit murder.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 23/08/2024 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, and dismissed the bail applications of the accused respondents Yashpal and Raman.
Law Points
- Bail
- Parity
- Section 439 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Conspiracy
- Contract Killing
- FIR Not Encyclopaedia
- Mastermind Accused
