Main Accused Cannot Claim Bail on Parity When They Are Alleged Masterminds of a Conspiracy : Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case

“Merely because no overt act is attributed in the FIR cannot be the sole consideration for bail in a serious offence under Section 302 IPC” – Supreme Court of India delivered a stern message by quashing a Rajasthan High Court order that granted bail to the two principal accused in a premeditated murder case. The Court held that bail cannot be granted mechanically on the ground of parity when the accused are alleged to be the masterminds of a conspiracy. Terming the High Court's approach erroneous, the Supreme Court declared, “The order of grant of bail to accused on parity is error apparent on the face of the record.”
The apex court noted that the High Court failed to distinguish between co-accused with minimal involvement and those directly orchestrating the offence.

The facts of the case trace back to a brutal murder committed on November 28, 2023, during a marriage procession in Rajasthan. According to the prosecution, the respondents Yashpal and Raman, driven by existing enmity, hired a known contract killer, Vicky @ Kartoos, to assassinate Aman Yadav. During the procession, Vicky fired seven rounds, one of which killed Aman Yadav and injured two others. Immediately after the incident, the accused fled the scene. The FIR, registered the next day, alleged that this was not a spontaneous act of violence but a carefully planned murder.
The police investigation confirmed the presence of a conspiracy. Statements of three eyewitnesses, including the two injured, consistently identified the involvement of the contract killer and pointed to prior enmity. A weapon was recovered from the house of one of the accused based on disclosures made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. A supplementary chargesheet was later filed, establishing that the accused respondents were not merely present but were the planners of the crime.

Despite these serious findings, the High Court, by its order dated August 23, 2024, granted them bail on the ground that other co-accused had already been enlarged on bail and no direct firearm usage was attributed to the respondents. The High Court observed, “General omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners… Looking to the fact that the case of the petitioners is of par with them… I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail.”

The Supreme Court found this reasoning fundamentally flawed. Rejecting the parity argument, the Court stated: “We do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the accused respondents whose bail application was allowed holding that no material against the accused person is available.”

The Court sharply criticised the High Court for overlooking the distinction between the main accused and co-accused with peripheral roles. It underscored that in earlier bail orders for other co-accused like Omprakash, the High Court had specifically noted that the main accused were Yashpal, Raman, and Vicky @ Kartoos. Importantly, Omprakash had been granted bail on account of his old age (84 years) and lack of direct involvement.

The Supreme Court highlighted the fatal flaw in granting bail to the main conspirators merely because others had been granted similar relief, observing: “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.”

Refuting the claim that there was no concrete evidence of conspiracy, the Court observed: “Sufficient material is available on record to show that these two accused engaged the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos to kill Aman.”

It further noted that the shooting was not spontaneous. “The contract killer also conducted a trial shoot by firing his pistol into the air… using this quarrel as an opportunity and as per the plan hatched by the respondents, the contract killer… shot victim Aman.”

The Court was also unimpressed by the argument that there was no direct attribution of the shooting to Yashpal and Raman in the FIR. It clarified,

“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.”

Reiterating that an FIR only initiates the process, the Court noted:
“An FIR is not an encyclopaedia of facts… in the course of investigation, the material collected suggested that the respondent accused persons hatched a conspiracy so as to eliminate the victim.”

The Court also took note of the fact that the respondents had absconded for nearly six months and surrendered only after their bail was rejected. This, the Court said, corroborated the complainant’s apprehension that if released, the respondents might abscond again or tamper with evidence.

“The apprehension of the complainant, that the respondent accused, if released on bail may pressurise the witnesses is not unjustified.”
It added,
“There exists a reasonable apprehension that if these accused persons are granted bail, then they may attempt to pressurise or influence the witnesses or even abscond.”

Setting aside the High Court’s bail order, the Supreme Court decisively ruled: “The present appeal is allowed. The High Court order granting bail to the accused respondents is hereby set aside.”
It directed the accused to surrender within two weeks and made clear that the trial must proceed uninfluenced by its observations in this judgment.

This ruling stands as a reaffirmation that the principle of parity cannot override the seriousness of allegations or the specific roles attributed to the accused. The Court has once again cautioned that bail decisions must reflect the factual nuances of each case and should not be reduced to a mechanical exercise of comparison.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2025