Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Marandi Aged About 19 Years S/O … vs State Of Jharkhand on 16 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.506 of 2022
------
Manoj Marandi aged about 19 years S/O Pendo Marandi Resident of
Village Gari Tola Salujam, P.O. and P.S. Ichak, District Hazaribagh
.... .... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand .... .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pandey A.N. Roy, Advocate
Ms. Sakshi Charu, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, Spl. P.P.
------
C.A.V. on 02.04.2025 Pronounced on 16/04/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
I.A. No.2236 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 430 (1) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of
sentence dated 19.04.2022 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Hazaribagh, in connection with Sessions Trial No.77 of
2019, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case No.186 of 2018, whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the
offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life along with fine of
Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further
been directed to undergo S.I. for six months. He has further
been directed to undergo R.I. for three years under Sections
201/34 of the IPC along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of
1
payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo S.I.
for two months. Both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The case of the prosecution on the basis of written report of
Shibu Tudu, S/o late Talo Manjhi alleging therein that his father
Talo Manjhi, aged about 50 years, S/o late Bisun Manjhi went
for grazing of cattle towards Bareda forest on 16.10.2018 and
he did not return since then and they were making search of
him, then his villager Binod Soren S/o Dhani Ram Soren and
Raja Ram Manjhi, S/o Tulsi Tudu told that his father Talo
Manjhi was grazing the cattle on 16.10.218 at 05:00 in the
evening, they saw Rajendra Marandi, Manoj Marandi, both
sons of Bendo Marandi and Lalji Manjhi S/o Babu Ram Manjhi,
killed his father by tangi and they saw it but on account of fear
they did not divulge this fact and today they disclosed this fact
then, they made query to Rajendra Marandi, Manoj Marandi
and Lalji Manjhi, then they disclosed before villager that they
on 16.10.2018 at 05:00 P.M. in the evening killed Talo Manjhi
by Tangi at Bareda forest (Dhadijhagar) and dead body has
been concealed at Bargaon forest, then they along with
aforesaid three came to Bargaon forest then they saw the dead
body of Talo Manjhi was concealed in forest and injury was on
the head, face and body.
2
3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ichak P.S. Case No.
186/2018 dated 20.10.2018 under Sections 302/201/34 of the
IPC has been registered against the present appellant,
namely, Manoj Marandi and two other accused persons.
4. On completion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-
sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302/201/34 of
I.P.C. against the accused namely, Lalji Manjhi, Rajendra
Marandi and Manoj Marandi, the appellant herein, on the basis
of which, Cognizance was taken on 17.01.2019 and the case
was committed to the Court of Session. Charge against the
above named accused under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of
the IPC has been framed on 23.04.2019.
5. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has
examined altogether 11 witnesses and the learned trial court
after appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled
against the present applicant/appellant along with other
accused proved beyond all reasonable doubts and
accordingly, the present applicant/appellant has been
convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
6. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
applicant/appellant with the prayer for suspension of sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
3
Submission of the learned senior counsel for the
appellant
7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a
case where there is no cogent evidence said to come in
course of trial, basis upon which, the prosecution version has
been said to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
8. It has further been submitted that it is a case where the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge in view
of the fact that there is contradiction in the testimony of
witnesses.
9. It has been contended that P.W.1 who has been said to be an
eye witness of the occurrence has been declared hostile.
However, P.W.7 who has also been said to be an eye witness,
had disclosed the names of the accused persons after five
days of alleged occurrence. The coordinate Bench of this Court
after taking into consideration the testimony of P.W.7 in entirety,
has granted bail to co-accused, namely, Lalji Manjhi passed in
I.A. No.3099 of 2024 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.718 of 2022],
wherein, the evidence of P.W.7 appears to be doubtful.
10. It has also been contended that the case of the present
appellant is identically placed to that of co-accused, namely,
Lalji Manjhi and Rajendra Marandi who have been directed to
be released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.718 of 2022 (I.A. No.3099 of
4
2024) and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2021 (I.A. No.12168 of
2024) vide orders dated 22.10.2024 and 26.03.2025
respectively.
11. It has been contended that the I.O. has no jurisdiction to
investigate the case as the dead body of the deceased has
been recovered from Bargaon Forest and the said forest
comes under Padma O.P. and Barhi Police Station.
12. Learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that it is a fit case for suspension of sentence
during pendency of the appeal.
Submission of the learned Spl.P.P for the respondent-State
13. While on the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Kr. Tiwari, learned Spl.
P.P. appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
14. It has been submitted that the prosecution has produced and
examined 11 witnesses who have thoroughly and consistently
supported the facts of the occurrence on its material point.
15. Further, it has been contended that P.W. 7 has supported the
case of the prosecution and there is also extra judicial
confession of the accused persons in the present case.
16. It has also been contended that there is ample evidence
available on record which categorically indicates the culpability
of the accused persons including the present appellant in the
present case.
5
17. It has been contended that the Doctor, P.W.11 has also
supported the prosecution version as it appears from the
testimony of this witness that the injuries caused by sharp
cutting heavy weapon, i.e. Tangi. The case of prosecution has
fully been substantiated taking into consideration the testimony
of the doctor.
18. Learned State Counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that there is material available on record, based
upon which, the learned trial court has found the charge proved
beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
Analysis
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
across the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment, as also, the testimony of the witnesses
along with other exhibits, as available in the Trial Court
Records.
20. Before adverting to the facts of the instant case, it needs to
refer herein the settled position of law that the Court
considering an application for suspension of sentence is to
consider only the prima facie merits of the case, reference in
this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of
U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645, wherein, it has been observed that the
6
Court while considering an application for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits
of the case, coupled with other factors. There should be strong
compelling reasons for grant of bail, notwithstanding an order
of conviction, by suspension of sentence, and this strong and
compelling reason must be recorded in the order granting bail,
as mandated in Section 389(1) CrPC.
21. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position, this Court is
now adverting to the admitted factual aspects of the instant
case.
22. Admittedly, in the instant case, homicide has been taken place
and the learned trial court on the basis of testimony of P.W.7
who claimed himself as an eyewitness of the alleged
commission of crime, has convicted the present
applicant/appellant along with the other co-accused, namely,
Rajendra Marandi and Lalji Manjhi and sentenced them as
aforesaid.
23. Further, the admitted fact which has also been recorded by the
learned trial court in the impugned order that the P.W.7 had
disclosed the names of the accused persons the present
applicant/appellant after five days of alleged occurrence.
24. Further, admitted fact is that another witness, i.e., P.W.1 who
also claimed himself as an eyewitness has been declared
hostile by the prosecution since he has not supported the case
7
of the prosecution.
25. It needs to refer herein that vide order dated 22.10.2024
passed in I.A. No.3099 of 2024 [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.718 of
2022], the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court taking into
consideration the aforesaid admitted factual aspect, has
granted bail to co-accused, namely, Lalji Manjhi. For ready
reference, the relevant portion of the aforesaid order dated
22.10.2024 is being quoted as under:
“It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is in custody since 20.10.2018.
Further, it has been submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that PW-1, who had disclosed the
name of the appellant and other accused persons of
having assaulted the father of the informant, has been
declared hostile by the prosecution. It has been
submitted that so far eye-witness PW-7 is concerned,
it seems that he had disclosed the names of the
accused persons after five days of the alleged
occurrence.
——– ——– ——–
Looking to the evidence of PW-7 which appears to be
doubtful, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions
Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2019.”
26. Further, vide order dated 26.03.2025 passed in I.A. No.12168
of 2024 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2021) the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court taking into consideration the order dated
22.10.2024 passed in I.A. No.3099 of 2024 [Cr. Appeal (DB)
8
No.718 of 2022], by which, co-accused namely, Lalji Manjhi
was granted bail, has granted bail to another co-accused
namely, Rajendra Marandi. For ready reference, the relevant
portion of the order dated 26.03.2025 is being quoted as under:
“Submission has been advanced by the learned
senior counsel for the appellant that one of the co-
convicts Lalji Manjhi has subsequently been granted
bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 718 of
2022 and doubt has been cast upon the evidence of
P.W.-7. It has further been submitted that the dead
body was recovered on the joint confession of the
appellant and the other co-convicts including Lalji
Manjhi who, as noted above, has been granted bail by
this Court.
————— —————
Regard being had to the above, we are inclined to admit
the appellant on bail.”
27. Thus, from the aforesaid orders dated 22.10.2024 and
26.03.2025, it is evident that the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has granted bail to co-accused persons, namely, Lalji
Manjhi and Rajendra Marandi by taking into consideration the
delay disclosure of the name of the accused persons by the
P.W.7, who had claimed himself to be an eyewitness to the
occurrence. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also
taken into consideration the fact that P.W.1 who had also
claimed himself to be an eyewitness of the alleged occurrence,
has been declared hostile by the prosecution, since, he has not
supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief.
28. It requires to refer herein that the learned senior counsel for the
9
appellant has emphasized his argument on the issue of parity
and contended that other co-accused persons, namely, Lalji
Manjhi and Rajendra Marandi, upon whom, there is similar
allegation, therefore, on the ground of parity also, the present
applicant/appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail after
suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
29. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the issue of
parity has been dealt by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, wherein, it has held as under:
“18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant
bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused
who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been
granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that
parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the
Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the
accused whose application is under consideration.”
30. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its
powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of
circumstances before granting bail and by only simply saying that
another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine
whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod
vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein it
has been held as under:
“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed
10
by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the
law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and
gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v.
State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC
508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while
applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to
consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.
This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17)
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a
stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-
sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to
scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the
ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that
it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order
[Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031]
clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a
matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second
respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of
other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take
note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path
of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount
to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.”
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the
manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of
parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai
Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj
2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat,
2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to
Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was
sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to
whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh
Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine
Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he
was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again,
11
bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he
was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that
Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who
were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High
Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what
is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon
the role of the accused. Merely observing that another
accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar
weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the
grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In
deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the
accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the
victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has
proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment
as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the
law.”
31. It is evident from the proposition laid down in the said cases that the
factual aspect governing the case of the culpability said to be
committed by one or the other, if found to be exactly the same and
having taken into consideration by the concerned Court, then only
the principle of parity will be applicable.
32. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court is
now adverting to the finding of the learned trial court in the
impugned order and factual aspects of the case as also the
testimonies of the witnesses, particularly P.W.7, in order to ascertain
the issue of parity in the alleged culpability of the co-accused
namely, Lalji Manjhi and Rajendra Marandi who have been enlarged
on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
33. It is apparent from the testimony of P.W.7, namely, Raja Ram Tudu
@ Raja Ram Manjhi, which has been referred in impugned order
12
that he had stated in his testimony that he along with Binod Soren
went to Bareda forest on 16.10.2018 and at about 05:00 PM. in the
evening they saw Talo Manjhi was killed by tangi by Rajendra
Marandi, Manoj Marandi (applicant herein) and Lalji Manjhi and he
had seen the murder and out of fear he could not divulge this fact to
the villager because he got scared with the accused persons.
34. He had further stated that with courage, he divulged regarding the
incident to villager on 20.10.2018 and thereafter villager made
inquiry from Rajendra Marandi, Manoj Marandi (applicant herein)
and Lalji Manjhi and at that time he was there and all the three
accused persons had disclosed that they killed Talo Manjhi on
16.10.2018 at 05:00 Ρ.Μ. in the evening at Bareda forest. He had
further testified that all the three accused disclosed that they
concealed the dead body of Talo Manjhi at Bargaon forest and this
witness along with villager and three accused persons went to forest
where dead body of Talo Manjhi was found lying and neck, head
and nose of dead body were cut and thereafter villager intimated
police.
35. Thus, from the aforesaid testimonies, it is evident that this witness
has categorically stated the similar culpability against the present
applicant and other co-accused namely Rajendra Marandi and Lalji
Manjhi. It is further evident that on the joint extra-judicial confession
of the accused persons including the present applicant/appellant the
dead body of deceased was recovered from the forest area. It is
13
also apparent from the testimony of P.W.7 that he had divulged the
detail of alleged occurrence after delay of five days from the day of
alleged occurrence.
36. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid, it is evident that there is similar
allegation against both of the co-accused, namely, Rajendra Marandi
and Lalji Manjhi and since the said co-accused have already been
enlarged on bail by suspension of the sentence, as such, present
applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail by suspending the
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
37. Further, as referred in the preceding paragraphs that this Court has
gone through orders dated 22.10.2024 and 26.03.2025 passed in
I.A. No.3099 of 2024 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No.718 of 2022) and in I.A.
No.12168 of 2024 (Cr. Appeal (DB) No.337 of 2021) by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, by which, co-accused Rajendra
Marandi and Lalji Manjhi, upon whom, there is similar allegation, has
already been enlarged on bail by suspension of sentence and has
found that the Co-ordinate Bench while enlarging the said co-
accused on bail has doubted the veracity of the testimony of P.W.7
on the ground of delay which has been caused by P.W.7 in divulging
the fact of the alleged occurrence.
38. This Court, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove and by
applying the proposition laid down for the purpose of applicability of
principle of parity, in the light of the order passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench in the case of co-convicts, namely, Rajendra Marandi and
14
Lalji Manjhi, is of the view that it is a fit case for suspension of
sentence.
39. Accordingly, the interlocutory application being I.A. No.2236 of
2025 stands allowed.
40. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in connection with
Sessions Trial No.77 of 2019, arising out of Ichak P.S. Case
No.186 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No.50 of 2019.
41. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not
prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for
its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-
15