Supreme Court: Bail Cannot Be Granted To Murder Accused Merely Because No Overt Act Is Attributed To Him In FIR
The Supreme Court set aside the Impugned Order of the Rajasthan High Court, which had earlier allowed the bail Application of the accused on the basis of parity.
The Supreme Court has held that merely because no overt act is attributed to an accused in the FIR, the same cannot be the sole consideration for the grant of bail in a serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
The Court set aside the bail granted to an accused who allegedly hired a contract killer to get another man murdered during a wedding procession. The Court set aside the Impugned Order of the Rajasthan High Court, which had earlier allowed the bail Application of the accused on the basis of parity, observing that two co-accused in the case had already been granted bail on the same set of allegations. The Prosecution alleged that the accused had hired a contract killer to kill the victim in a “planned and pre-meditated manner” in the middle of a marriage procession.
A Bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice Prasanna B Varale held, “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.”
AOR Anuj Bhandari represented the Appellant, while AAG Padmesh Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the contract killer had fired seven rounds of bullets, upon being hired by the accused in furtherance of an existing enmity with the victim. One bullet hit the victim, resulting in his death, while the remaining bullets gravely injured two other individuals, who were also part of the procession. Following the incident, the accused allegedly fled the location in a car. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307 and 302 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “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.”
“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,” the Bench further noted.
“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,” the Court remarked.
The Bench stated, “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.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 666)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anuj Bhandari; Advocate Manu Agarwal
Respondent: AAG Padmesh Mishra; AOR Roopansh Purohit and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar
