State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 11/09/2025 Order

1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.489/2023 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 307 & 302 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been implicated in the present case by the Investigating Agency without any evidence. He submits that co-accused persons namely- Yashpal, Raman, Sandeep Kumar, Omprakash and Kulwant Singh @ Teetu have already been granted benefit of bail [2025:RJ-JP:37134] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10980/2025] by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He argues that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.02.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that besides six criminal antecedents, the Investigating Agency has concluded that petitioner is the main culprit in this case and he was hired by the co-accused persons to eliminate the deceased. Counsel submits that facility of bail granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to co-accused namely- Yashpal and Raman was assailed by the complainant by way of filing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.14681/2024 and vide order dated 13.05.2025, facility of bail granted to the aforementioned co-accused persons has been cancelled by Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of passing a detailed order wherein role attributed to the petitioner has also been discussed, which reads as under:- “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 co- accused 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37134] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10980/2025] 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 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37134] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10980/2025] 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.” I have considered the contentions. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

5. of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record, as also considering the role attributed to the petitioner and observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court while cancelling the facility of bail granted to co-accused namely- Yashpal & Raman and further considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as noted above, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. MADAN/137 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J