IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9375 of 2024)
SURESH PRASAD ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have examined the allegations against respondent No. 2,
Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray. It is submitted that this is a case of
contract killing. The prosecution, in order to show the conspiracy,
relies upon the CCTV footage, in which the car belonging to
respondent No. 2, Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray, is visible at the time
when the offence was about to be committed. In addition, the
prosecution also relies upon the Call Data Records, which would
show the connection between the contract killers and respondent No.
2, Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray. Lastly, it is submitted that Section 8
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, would be attracted in view of the
disclosure statement read with the material placed on record. That
apart, the prosecution has also relied upon the motive, in the form
of political rivalry.
Respondent No. 2, Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray, it is obvious is
facing trial under Sections 302, 307, 326, and 120B of the Indian
1
Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Keeping in view the allegations as well as the other facts in
mind, we do not think that the High Court was right in releasing
Vishal Kumar @ Ajay Ray on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Accordingly, the ...