1. Conspiracy to commit murder using a contract killer during a marriage procession — Charges under Sections 302, 120B, 149 IPC and Arms Act — Appeal against bail grant. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 808
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.V. Viswanathan, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Aashish Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Yashpal & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2573 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 14681 of 2024)
Decided On : 13-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Manu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Roopansh Purohit, AOR Mr. Harsh Panwar, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anuj Bhandari, AOR Mr. Manu Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Jahanvi Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Roopansh Purohit, AOR Mr. Harsh Panwar, Adv. Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, AOR
In serious criminal cases involving conspiracy, bail should not be granted based solely on parity with co-accused; all evidence and potential for witness tampering must be thoroughly evaluated.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 341, 323, 307, 302, 120B, 147, 148, 149 - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3, 25, 5, 27 - Bail application - Appellants were accused of conspiracy to kill victim during a marriage procession - High Court granted bail based on parity with co-accused - Supreme Court held that High Court erred in granting bail without consideration of the serious charges and evidence against the appellants - The fact that they are main accused and their potential to influence witnesses was not adequately assessed. (Paras 2-20)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - In serious offences, especially those involving conspiracy and organized crime, the role of the accused, potential for witness intimidation, and the nature of the charges must be carefully evaluated before granting bail. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, involved in a planned killing during a marriage procession, were accused of hiring a sharpshooter to eliminate the victim, Aman. The FIR indicated a premeditated attack stemming from a prior feud.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to grant bail was set aside based on the established involvement of the accused in the conspiracy and the risk posed to witnesses. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough assessment of all evidence before granting bail.
Issues: The core issues included the appropriateness of bail for main accused in light of serious conspiracy charges and the implications of parity with co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: High Court's ruling failed to adequately consider the evidence suggesting active involvement in the conspiracy and potential for witness tampering, marking a fundamental error in assessing bail eligibility.
Result: Appeal allowed; respondents directed to surrender.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether bail can be granted on parity when accused are alleged masterminds of a conspiracy versus whether the incident was a sudden fight without common intention. (Para 9 , 10 )
3. Investigation revealed a pre-planned conspiracy and hiring of a contract killer; parity with non-main accused is inapplicable; absconding and risk of witness tampering justify detention. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Bail cannot be granted on parity if the accused are the main conspirators and the court fails to distinguish their roles from those of co-accused. (Para 15 , 16 , 20 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court bail order set aside — Respondents directed to surrender. (Para 20 , 21 )
6. Can bail be granted on the basis of parity if the accused are the main conspirators?
No. Parity is not applicable when the accused are the main accused or masterminds of a conspiracy, as their roles differ significantly from co-accused who are not primary offenders or have mitigating factors like extreme old age. (Para 15 , 20 )
7. Is the absence of a specific overt act in the FIR a sufficient ground for granting bail in serious offences?
No. An FIR is not an encyclopedia of facts but a starting point for investigation. Material collected during investigation, such as evidence of conspiracy and weapon recovery, can override the initial limited details of the FIR. (Para 16 )
8. How do absconding and the criminal antecedents of co-conspirators affect bail applications?
Absconding from arrest and the involvement of history-sheeters as contract killers create a reasonable apprehension that the accused may influence witnesses or flee again, which justifies the denial of bail. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
Prasanna B. Varale, J.
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[(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’)] and Section 3 and 25 of the ARMS ACT , 19592[(hereinafter referred to as ‘ ARMS ACT ’)] 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-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 3 41, 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 3 41, 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
