[2026:RJ-JP:3805] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 347/2026 1. Yashpal S/o Deepak, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ghadi, Post Bolni, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas District Khairthal-Tijara). 2. Raman S/o Sanjay, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ghadi, Post Bolni, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas District Khairthal-Tijara). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sumer Singh Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr.Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr.Chandra Shekhar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/01/2026 1. The first bail application of the petitioners was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 taking note of the fact that the case of the petitioners was at par with the case of other co- accused persons Sandeep and Om Prakash, to whom indulgence of bail was already granted by this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid order passed by this Court was assailed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing a Criminal Appeal No.2573/2025 and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.05.2025 and the order dated 23.08.2024 passed [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] by this Court was quashed and set-aside and the petitioners were directed to surrender themselves before the concerned Authorities. Furthermore, directions were issued to the trial Court to decide the matter on its merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 3. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2025, the petitioners surrendered before the Jail Authorities and they are presently in custody and subsequently thereto, charges have been framed against the petitioners along-with co-accused persons for different offences and statements of as many as seven prosecution witnesses have been recorded so far. Counsel submits that upon perusal of the statements of the complainant-PW-1 Ashish, PW-5 Vikas, who is the injured eye-witness and PW-6 Dinesh, it is clear that there is no variation in their Court statements and the allegations levelled in their statements against the petitioners are similar, identical and consistent with the allegations levelled by them in their Police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the witness PW-7 Naveen Kumar has improved his version during the course of trial and now, he has levelled allegation of causing fire arm injury against the petitioners along-with co-accused Vicky @ Kartoos. Counsel further submits that the above mentioned three witnesses, except PW-7 Naveen Kumar have not levelled any sort of allegation against the petitioners and they have specifically alleged that the fire arm was used by the main accused Vicky @ Kartoos which caused death of the deceased. Counsel submits that there has been no recovery at [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] the instance of the petitioner-Raman and the recovery of seven cartridges has been effected at the instance of the petitioner- Yashpal from an open place, after a period of six months from the alleged incident. Counsel submits that in spite of the above, no charge under Sections 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act has been framed against the petitioner-Yashpal. Hence, under these circumstances, there has been a change in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the long period of incarceration of the petitioners, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners were having enmity with the deceased, hence, they hatched a conspiracy with Vicky @ Kartoos. They further submits that thereafter, a trial of firearm was carried out in the open field, where two rounds were fired and cartridges have been recovered from that place and subsequently thereafter, the alleged incident has been caused during the procession of marriage. 5. Counsel submits that on earlier occasion, the bail application of the petitioners was allowed on the ground of parity that their case was at par with the case of two other co-accused persons, namely, Om Prakash and Sandeep. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioners is not at all found to be at par with the aforesaid two co-accused persons and this fact has also been thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Agency at the time of submission of the charge-sheet, wherein the conspiracy hatched by the [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] petitioners along-with other co-accused person Vicky @ Kartoos has been elaborated in detail in the conclusion of charge-sheet. 6. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 passed by this Court, an appeal was preferred by the complainant before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was allowed by passing a detailed order, after considering each and every material aspect of the matter. Counsel submits that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which needs any indulgence of this Court to entertain the second bail application filed by the petitioners. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Perusal of the record indicates that when the first bail application was submitted by the petitioners, the same was entertained and allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024, which was assailed by the complainant before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the indulgence of bail granted by this Court was cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 with a direction to the trial Court to decide the matter on its merits. 9. The basic argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that after passing of the aforesaid order by the Hon’ble Apex Court, charges were framed against the accused persons and the statements of material witnesses PW-1 Ashish, PW-5 Vikas and PW-6 Dinesh have been recorded and they have not levelled any allegation against the petitioners of causing fire arm injury, [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] however, such an allegation has been levelled against the main accused Vicky @ Kartoos. He further argued that other witness PW-7 Naveen Kumar has improved the version of his statement, during the course of trial, and he has levelled the allegation of causing fire arm injury not only against the co-accused Vicky @ Kartoos, but also against the petitioners. 10. This Court finds no merit and substance in the aforesaid argument raised by counsel for the petitioners as there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegations levelled against the petitioners by the aforesaid witnesses were very much there and are same and identical to the Police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. It is worthy to note here that the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the entire material facts, evidence and documents available on record and thereafter, the following order has been passed in Para Nos.11 to 21, which read as under:- “11. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld. Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant documents on record and the judgment passed by the High Court. 12. 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 and there is nothing on record to show that the accused respondents actively participated in the act of firing the bullet. 13. We are of the opinion that the contention that there is no material to the effect to indicate that they were involved in hatching the conspiracy is an aspect to be considered by the court by conducting a full-fledged trial. Sufficient [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] 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. 14. 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. As per the FIR, the sharpshooter Vicky @ Kartoos and other persons were dancing in the marriage procession when on a trifle issue they suddenly picked a quarrel with the victim and the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos immediately fired. Also, material on record reveals that before shooting the victim, the contract killer also conducted a trial shoot by firing his pistol into the air. 15. On the contrary, we find considerable merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court committed a serious error in holding and observing that the case of the respondents is at par with the case of other coaccused namely Sandeep and Omprakash. In so far as, the order granting bail to accused Omprakash is concerned, it was observed in the order dated 19.03.2024 by the learned Judge, that specific allegations have been assigned to co-accused Yasphal, Raman and Vicky @ Kartoos. Another consideration was the age of Omprakash wherein the submission advanced before the learned Judge in respect of the age of Omprakash was accepted and it was observed that the petitioner i.e. Omprakash is an old infirm person of 84 years of age. 16. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] 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 Aman. 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. 17. It is also reflected from the material, that before the actual incident of shooting victim Aman, the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos had opened the firearm for a test firing. The sequence of events at the incident show that the marriage procession started and some of the young boys started dancing in the procession. Aman was also amongst them and while dancing the accused respondent got into an argument with victim Aman and his friends. Using this quarrel as an opportunity and as per the plan hatched by the respondents, the contract killer Vicky @ Kartoos by using the firearm i.e. pistol, shot victim Aman, resulting in his death and two other persons, Vikash and Naveen were also injured. Their statements were also recorded by the investigating agency. The investigating agency was successful in recovering the weapon pistol from respondent no. 1. Admittedly, from the day of arrest till filing of the first chargesheet wherein these respondent accused were shown as absconding, the respondents were successful [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] in evading their arrest and subsequently when the application for grant of bail was rejected these respondents accused surrendered themselves to the Trial Court and then the application for grant of bail was filed before the High Court. 18. 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. 19. The complainant is also justified in making the submission that as the trial is now in the process and key prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, 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. 20. 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. 21. The respondents are directed to surrender themselves to the concerned authority not later than two weeks from today.” 12. Perusal of the statements of the material witnesses, i.e., PW-1 Ashish, PW-5 Vikas and PW-6 Dinesh indicates that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners by these witnesses in their Court statements are the same as the allegations which were levelled in their Police statements recorded [2026:RJ-JP:3805] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026] under Section 161 Cr.P.C. So far as improvement in the Court statement of the witness PW-7 Naveen Kumar from his earlier statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is concerned, this fact cannot be appreciated by this Court at this stage more particularly at the stage of granting/rejecting of the bail application. The trial Court would be at liberty to appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses at the time of conclusion of the trial. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires any indulgence to entertain the second bail application submitted by the petitioners. 14. This Court finds no merit in the instant misc. second bail application submitted by the petitioners, hence, the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/1