Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Bail Order Granting Parity Release To Accused in Contract-Killing During Marriage Procession

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Prasanna B. Varale heard an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order that had allowed bail to two accused on the ground of parity with other co-accused. The appeal challenged the Jaipur Bench’s 23 August 2024 order that enlarged bail to the accused respondents on the basis that other co-accused had already been granted bail.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court order granting bail. The Court held that the High Court erred in mechanically applying parity where material on record implicated the respondents as the masterminds who engaged a contract killer. The Court emphasized that an FIR “is not an encyclopaedia of facts” and that investigation had produced evidence pointing to conspiracy and engagement of a sharpshooter; accordingly the grant of bail on parity was unsustainable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. 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." The Court directed the respondents to surrender within two weeks and left the Trial Court to decide the matter on merits “uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment.”

Background The prosecution alleged that on 28 November 2023, during a marriage procession, Vicky @ Kartoos fired seven rounds; one bullet killed Aman Yadav and two others—Vikash and Naveen—received grievous injuries. FIR No. 489/2023 alleged a premeditated conspiracy: that accused respondents had engaged Vicky as a contract killer in furtherance of enmity dating to an incident on 19 November 2023. Investigation recorded statements of three eyewitnesses (two injured), recovered the pistol from the house of accused respondent No.1 pursuant to information under Section 27 Evidence Act, and filed a chargesheet under sections including 302 IPC and relevant Arms Act provisions.

Two co-accused obtained bail from the High Court earlier; the Rajasthan High Court later allowed bail applications of the present respondents by observing, among other things, that “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.” The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that the respondents were the main accused, had absconded earlier, and that material unearthed during investigation pointed to conspiracy and risk of tampering with witnesses. The respondents’ counsel relied on delay in lodging the FIR and argued the incident was a sudden fight rather than a planned killing.

The Supreme Court examined the record, witness statements, recovery of the pistol and the sequence of events including an alleged test firing by the sharpshooter, and concluded that sufficient material existed to suggest conspiracy and engagement of a contract killer. The Court found the High Court’s parity-based bail order to be a “mechanical” exercise and an error apparent on the face of the record. The bail order was set aside; respondents were directed to surrender within two weeks and the Trial Court was directed to proceed on merits.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 666 (Criminal Appeal No. 2573 of 2025; SLP (Crl.) No. 14681 of 2024) Case Title: Aashish Yadav v. Yashpal & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel names not mentioned in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel names not mentioned in the judgment]