13 May 2025 Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

An appeal to the Supreme Court challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision to grant bail to two accused respondents, Yashpal and Raman, in a murder case. The High Court had granted bail based on "parity," citing that other co-accused had already received bail for the same allegations.

The prosecution's case alleges that on November 28, 2023, during a marriage procession, Yashpal and Raman, driven by an existing enmity, hired a contract killer named Vicky at Kartoos to murder Aman Yadav. Vicky at Kartoos allegedly fired seven rounds, killing Aman and gravely injuring two others, Vikash and Naveen, before fleeing with the accused respondents. An FIR was registered, and eyewitness statements consistently confirmed the incident. A pistol, believed to be the murder weapon, was recovered from Yashpal's house based on Vicky at Kartoos's statement.

While the initial chargesheet was filed, investigation against the absconding Yashpal and Raman remained pending. Two co-accused, Kulwant and Om Prakash, were granted bail by the High Court, with Om Prakash's bail also considering his advanced age (84 years). Yashpal and Raman surrendered on May 14, 2024, after their initial bail applications were dismissed. A supplementary chargesheet later concluded that Yashpal and Raman were the "masterminds" behind the conspiracy.

Despite this, the High Court, on August 23, 2024, granted bail to Yashpal and Raman, again on the grounds of parity with the co-accused and general omnibus allegations. The High Court noted that the injured witnesses had specifically implicated Vicky at Kartoos for firing the shots.

The petitioner, aggrieved by this decision, argued that the High Court erred by granting bail to the alleged masterminds on the same grounds as co-accused who were specifically identified as "not the main accused." The petitioner emphasized the premeditated nature of the crime, the involvement of a contract killer with a criminal history, and the respondents' six-month period of abscondence, raising concerns about witness intimidation and potential flight.

The Supreme Court, upon review, found significant merit in the petitioner's arguments. It stated that sufficient material existed to suggest Yashpal and Raman engaged Vicky at Kartoos to kill Aman. The Court rejected the argument of a "sudden fight," highlighting the FIR's mention of a planned killing and a test firing by the contract killer prior to the incident.

Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had indeed committed a serious error by applying the principle of parity, as the case of Yashpal and Raman was distinct from the other co-accused (especially given Om Prakash's age and the specific allegations against the main accused). The Court also stressed that an FIR is not an exhaustive account and subsequent investigation revealed the conspiracy. Given the seriousness of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the contract killer, and the risk of witness intimidation or abscondence, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's bail order.

Yashpal and Raman have been directed to surrender to the concerned authority within two weeks. The Supreme Court clarified that its observations are solely for the purpose of setting aside the bail order and the trial court should decide the matter on its own merits, uninfluenced by this judgment.