Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. As per the further allegations, the accused Ramphal @ Rafi was arrested on 12.02.2024, after being produced by his brother at the police station. He suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the murder of the victim Gosha Kaur, by disclosing that in December, 2023, he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the present appellant to kill the victim, as she had been pressurising him to marry her even after his marriage. As per the disclosure made by him, the appellant had introduced him to a contract killer, namely Jagdish alias Khan, who had agreed to kill the victim in lieu of money. In pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by them, he (Ramphal) had called the victim to Tohana and had taken her in his Swift car. While on the way, the accused Jagdish alias Khan joined them and both of them strangulated the victim with a muffler and a mobile charging wire, thereby causing her death. They concealed the dead body in the boot of the car, which was subsequently packed in a sack and thrown into the Ghaggar 2 of 6 CRA-S-1812-2025 (O&M) -3- River. He further disclosed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 2.5 lacs to accused Jagdish. The appellant was nominated as an additional accused and was arrested on 14.02.2024. On interrogation, he too suffered a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime. Investigation now stands concluded and the appellant filed an application for grant of bail, which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 25.02.2025.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as the present case pertains to a heinous and pre-planned murder committed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, in which the appellant played an active role by facilitating the main accused and introducing him to the contract killer. The appellant has been implicated on the basis of disclosure statements, including his own, which prima facie established his involvement and at the stage of bail, detailed appreciation of evidence is impermissible. Considering the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and the possibility of the appellant influencing witnesses, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out and the appeal deserves dismissal. There are chances of the appellant's intimidating the witnesses, if extended benefit of bail. The case of the appellant is on different footing than the co-accused, who have been granted concession of bail. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions.

7. At the outset, it is evident that the present case pertains to a brutal and pre-meditated murder of a young woman, which, as per the prosecution 4 of 6 CRA-S-1812-2025 (O&M) -5- version, was committed pursuant to a well-hatched criminal conspiracy. The allegations against the appellant are not casual or peripheral. As per the material on record, it is the appellant who facilitated the main accused by introducing him to the contract killer, thereby playing a significant role in execution of the crime. Though the appellant was not named in the FIR but his nomination is based upon disclosure statements of the main accused as well as his own disclosure statement, which at this stage, prima facie indicate his involvement in the conspiracy. At the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or examine its probative value. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding absence of recovery, delay in identification of the deceased and pendency of DNA report are matters which require consideration during trial and cannot be treated as decisive factors for grant of bail at this stage, particularly in a case involving a charge under Section 302 IPC. It will also be a matter of trial whether the provisions of SC/ST Act are attracted against the appellant or not.

8. So far as the plea of parity is concerned, the same is misconceived. The co-accused, namely Buta Singh @ Popli and Sagar, who have been granted the concession of bail, stand on an entirely different footing, as the allegations against them are limited to supplying the sack used for disposal of the dead body. The role attributed to the appellant, who is alleged to have facilitated the conspiracy by introducing the contract killer, is qualitatively distinct and graver in nature. As per the above discussed facts and circumstances, considering the seriousness of the offence, the manner in 5 of 6 CRA-S-1812-2025 (O&M) -6- which it is alleged to have been committed, the specific role attributed to the appellant and the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding intimidation of witnesses, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.