[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Janardan Rai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 July, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 190 of 2024
----
Janardan Rai ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
——
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Kamdeo Pandey, Advocate
For the Resp.-state : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Govind Ray Karan, Advocate
——–
C.A.V. on 15/07/2025 Pronounced on 22/07/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad A.C.J.
I.A No.7196 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) and (2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of the appellant Janardan
Rai, for suspension of sentence dated 06.01.2024 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 104
of 2021 arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case No. 187 of 2020,
whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been directed to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.
10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) for the offence u/s 302/149 of
the IPC and has further been directed to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for the period of one year for the offence
342/149 of the IPC and further he has been directed to
-1-
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years
for the offence under Section 325/149 IPC and further
directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
two years for the offence under Section 147 IPC and further
directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of
three years for the offence under Section 148 IPC. All the
sentences directed to be run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.8.2020 the
informant’s brother Kailash Yadav alongwith Inderlal Verma
was returning to his village after lodging complaint against
Sukhdeo Rai, Mahendra Pandit and Bhuneshwar Pandit in
Bengabad Police Station. It is alleged that at about 10:00
P.M. the accused persons namely Rajesh Rai, Mukesh Rai,
Vicky Rai, Sukhdeo Rai, Janardan Rai, Chhotu Rai as well as
other unknown persons who were armed with lathi, danda,
rod and pistol. Suddenly, they attacked on the informant’s
brother Kailash Yadav and Inderlal Verma and the accused
persons also opened 1-2 round firing in the air. It is also
alleged that the accused persons snatched away cash of
Rs.20,000/- from the possession of Kailash Yadav. Further
the accused persons assaulted both of them due to which
Kailash Yadav and Inderlal Verma sustained several injuries
on their persons. Both injured persons were brought to Sadar
Hospital, Giridih from where they were referred to P.M.C.H.
-2-
Dhanbad and on the way to Dhanbad, Kailash Yadav died.
On the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant namely Chhote
Lal Yadav, the F.I.R. was lodged against the accused persons.
3. On the basis of Fardbeyan of informant, Bengabad
police instituted the case against the above-named accused
persons and others for the offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 302,
120B of the IPC & 27 of the Arms Act, vide Bengabad P.S.
Case No.- 187 of 2020, and after due investigation police
submitted charge-sheet.
4. Accordingly, cognizance of the of the offence has been
taken and case was committed the Court of Sessions for trial.
5. Thereafter, the charges have been framed against the
accused persons including present applicant/appellant
namely Janardan Rai, for the offence punishable u/s 147,
148, 342/149, 379/149, 302/149, 307/149 of I.P.C. and
Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 and it was read over and
explained in Hindi to which the present applicant pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case has adduced
13 witnesses and also exhibited documents and the learned
trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the
charges levelled against the present appellant/applicant
along with other accused proved beyond reasonable doubt
and accordingly the present applicant has been convicted and
sentenced as mentioned above.
-3-
7. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred
by the appellant with a prayer for suspension of sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants:
8. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has submitted
that the allegations against the appellant/applicant are
general and omnibus in nature.
9. It has further been submitted that the co-convict Rajesh
Rai, Sukhdeo Rai and Vicky Rai has been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 07.05.2025, 23.06.2025 and
24.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 195 of 2024,
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 189 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No. 191 of 2024 respectively, as such on the issue of
parity also, present application is fit to be allowed.
10. Learned senior counsel for the appellant/applicant,
based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the
appellant may be released on bail by suspending the sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned APP for the state:
11. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State, assisted by the learned counsel for the informant has
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
12. Learned State counsel though admitted the fact that co-
convicts have been granted bail by suspending their sentence
but submission has been made that the case of present
-4-
applicant is different to the applicant of the said appeal
therefore, the ground of parity, as taken by learned counsel
for the petitioner has no leg to stand.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent state, therefore, has
submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Analysis
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
appreciated the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties.
15. After hearing the argument of both the parties it is
evident that the learned counsel for the appellant has
emphasized his argument on the issue of parity stating that
other appellants have been released on bail by suspension of
sentence, therefore on the ground of parity also, the present
applicant deserve to be enlarged on bail after suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
16. 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-5-
required to focus upon the role attached to the
accused whose application is under consideration.”
17. 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 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
-6-
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, 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
-7-
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.”
18. 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 then only the principle of parity will be
applicable.
19. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law
this Court is now adverting to the orders passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench by which other appellants have been granted
bail. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench is quoted as under:
Order dated 07.05.2025 passed in I.A. No. 4953 of 2025 (Cr.
Appeal (DB) No. 195 of 2024
Submission has been advanced by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the allegations are
general and omnibus in nature. It has further been
submitted that the injured eye-witness PW-5 has taken
the name of several accused persons including the
present appellant apart from 20-25 unknown persons
who are said to have committed assault upon the
brother of the informant. The learned counsel therefore
submits that the allegations being general and
omnibus in nature the appellant deserves to be
released on bail.
The learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for
bail of the appellant and has submitted that the
appellant has got several criminal antecedents.
However, considering the nature of allegations
against the appellant which clearly transpires that the-8-
same are general and omnibus, we are inclined to
admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the
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, Giridih in ST No. 104 of 2021, arising
out of Bengabad PS Case No. 187 of 2020.
I.A. stands disposed of.”
20. It appears from the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
order, that the Co-ordinate Bench considering the nature of
allegations against the said appellant namely Rajesh Rai are
general and omnibus, has admitted the appellant on bail.
21. Now, coming to the second order dated 23.06.2025
passed in I.A. No. 4952 of 2025(Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 189 of
2024) by which appellant namely Sukhdeo Rai has been
granted bail during pendency of the appeal. For ready
reference, the said order is quoted as under:
Order dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 4952 of
2025(Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 2024)
Submission has been advanced by the learned
senior counsel for the appellant that the allegations
against the appellant are general and omnibus in
nature. It has further been submitted that in similar
circumstances, one of the co-convict Rajesh Rai has
been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Appeal
(D.B.) No. 195 of 2024.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State,
assisted by learned counsel for the informant have
opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
Learned counsel appearing for the informant has
submitted that the distinguishing feature of the case of-9-
the present appellant and the co-convict Rajesh Rai is
the fact that it was the appellant who was armed with
a Danda and who was following the deceased.
It has been alleged that the brother of the informant
was returning from his village along with one Inderlal
Verma when they were accosted by several named and
unnamed persons who had committed assault upon
them with lathi, Danda, rod and pistol resulting in the
death of the brother of the informant. The injured eye
witness has been examined as P.W.5., who has taken
the name of the present appellant as well as the other
co-convict. The allegation appears to be general and
omnibus in nature and the case of the present
appellant is similar to that of the co-convict Rajesh
Rai, who has already been granted bail by this Court
earlier.
On consideration of the above, we are inclined to admit
the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the
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, Giridih, in connection with S.T. Case
No.104/2021, arising out of Bengabad P.S. Case
No.187/2020.
The aforesaid I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.”
22. It appears though the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has gone into the merit of the case in one paragraph
regarding the involvement of the said applicant but from the
finding and discussions so made in the order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench, it is evident that the learned Co-ordinate
Bench has taken n to consideration that allegations are
general and omnibus in nature has enlarged the said
appellant/applicant on bail.
– 10 –
23. Now coming to third order dated 24.06.2025 by which
the appellant namely Vicky Rai (appellant of Cr. Appeal
(DB)No.191 of 2024) has been granted bail, for ready
reference same is being quoted as under:
Order dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 4952 of
2025(Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 189 of 2024)
“It has been submitted that subsequently one of
the co-convict Rajesh Rai has been granted bail by this
Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 195 of 2024. It has
further been submitted that the allegations are general
and omnibus in nature and the evidence of the injured
eye-witness (PW-5) clearly reveals that several named
and 20- 25 unnamed persons had committed assault
upon the brother of the informant.
Learned A.P.P. though has opposed the prayer for
bail of the appellant but does not dispute the aforesaid
fact.
Regard being had to the above, during the
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, Giridih in S.T. No. 104 of 2021.
I.A. stands disposed of.”
24. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the co-
ordinate Bench while referring the bail order of appellant
Rajesh Rai and further taking into consideration the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature has enlarged
the appellant namely Vicky Rai on bail. Thus, from all the
aforesaid orders it is evident that the Co-ordinate Bench has
enlarged the aforesaid co-convicts by taking into
– 11 –
consideration the allegations which have levelled against the
aforesaid appellants are general and omnibus in nature.
25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects this
Court is adverting to the factual aspects of the instant case in
order to decide the issue of parity vis-à-vis the complicity of
the present applicant in the alleged offence.
26. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that
PW5 Indralal Verma @ Indramani Mahto is the most
important prosecution witness who has been assaulted by
the accused persons including the present applicant as such
he is the injured eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and
further at the of the said occurrence he was with the
deceased. Beside the P.W.5, P.W.2 and P.W.7 is the
eyewitness of the said occurrence.
27. P.W.2 in his testimony has categorically stated that at
the time of said occurrence he alongwith Indralal Verma,
Kailash Yadav was returning by motor-cycle after giving a
written application in Bengabad P. S. And when they reached
near Chamartoli Durgamandap, a rod was inserted by the
accused Rajesh Yadav into the front wheel of motorcycle of
Kailash Yadav. Thereafter, the accused persons namely
Rajesh Rai Vicky Rai, Sukhdeo Rai, Mukesh Rai, Sanjay Rai,
Janardan Rai, Chhotu Rai started assaulting Kailash Yadav
and Indralal by means of lathi and danda. It is further stated
that due to the said assault, the hands and legs of Indralal
– 12 –
Verma were broken whereas Kailash Yadav became seriously
injured. Later on, Kailash Yadav died on the way when he
was being taken for his treatment
28. Further PW.5 who is the injured eyewitness of the
alleged occurrence had identified the present applicant as
attacker along with Rajesh Rai and Vicky Rai.
29. P.W.7 Chhotelal Yadav (Eye-witness and Informant as
well as brother of the deceased Kailash Yadav) has stated that
he saw that his brother Kailash Yadav(deceased) was being
brutally assaulted by the accused persons namely Rajesh
Rai, Sukhdeo Rai, Mukesh Rai, Vicky Rai, Janardan Rai,
Chhotu Rai, Sanjay and Binod by means of lathi, danda and
rod. It is further stated that when they were raising alarm,
the accused persons fled away from there and also opened
firing in the air. In para 2, PW 7 further states that when the
accused persons fled away, he saw that his brother Kailash
Yadav sustained injuries on his head, chest, back, legs,
hands and other part of his body.
30. Thus, from the testimony of aforesaid witnesses it is
evident that name of present applicant/appellant has taken
by these eyewitness as one of the attacker/assailants. It is
true that other accused persons i.e. Rajesh Rai and Vicky Rai
who has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench, has
also been named as an assailant along with the present
applicant/appellant, but it is considered view of this Court
– 13 –
that when name of the persons has come on record as
assailants, then in such scenario it cannot be stated that
allegation are general and omnibus in nature. Further, it is
considered view of this Court that in the aforesaid situation it
is bounden duty of this Court to venture into the specific
attributability of the said named accused person by
corroborating the other reliable and cogent evidence available
on record.
31. This Court, in view of the aforesaid on the basis of
discussion made hereinabove is of the considered view that
the name and role of present applicant/ appellant has
specifically been narrated by the eyewitness i.e. P.W.2, 5 and
7 as such the case at hand would not come under the ambit
of giving benefit of parity.
32. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Preet Pal Singh vs. State of U.P.,
(2020) 8 SCC 645 has observed that there is difference
between grant of bail in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, post- conviction. In
the earlier case, there may be presumption of innocence,
which is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence,
and the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, in case of post-conviction
bail, by suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a
finding of guilt and the question of presumption of innocence
– 14 –
does not arise. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of
the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
“35. There is a difference between grant of bail
under Section 439 CrPC in case of pre-trial arrest and
suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC and
grant of bail, post conviction. In the earlier case, there
may be presumption of innocence, which is a
fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence, and
the courts may be liberal, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case, on the principle that bail is
the rule and jail is an exception, as held by this Court
in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Dataram Singh v.
State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri)
675] However, in case of post-conviction bail, by
suspension of operation of the sentence, there is a
finding of guilt and the question of presumption of
innocence does not arise. Nor is the principle of bail
being the rule and jail an exception attracted, once
there is conviction upon trial. Rather, the court
considering an application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail, is to consider the prima facie merits
of the appeal, 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.”
33. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment, that during
considering suspension of sentence under section 389 of
Cr.P.C which is the postconviction stage, the presumption of
innocence in favour the accused cannot be available and at
this stage, the Court’s only duty is to see that the prima-facie
case is made out or not.
– 15 –
34. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr.,
(2023) 6 SCC 123 has been pleased to hold that in cases
involving conviction under Section 302 IPC, it is only in
exceptional cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence
can be granted and while considering the bail the Court
should take care of the relevant factors like the nature of
accusation made against the accused, the manner in which
the crime is alleged to have been committed.
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the appellate
court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage
suspension of sentence and try to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution. Such
would not be a correct approach. For ready reference the
relevant paragraphs are being quoted herein under:
“31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra [Vijay Kumar v.
Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1195]
and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal [Ramji
Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal, (2002) 9 SCC 366 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 1197] , it was held by this Court that
in cases involving conviction under Section 302IPC, it
is only in exceptional cases that the benefit of
suspension of sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar
[Vijay Kumar v. Narendra, (2002) 9 SCC 364 : 2003
SCC (Cri) 1195] , it was held that in considering the
prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence
like murder punishable under Section 302IPC, the
court should consider the relevant factors like the
nature of accusation made against the accused, the
manner in which the crime is alleged to have been
– 16 –
committed, the gravity of the offence, and the
desirability of releasing the accused on bail after
they have been convicted for committing the
serious offence of murder.
33. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law, the
endeavour on the part of the court, therefore, should
be to see as to whether the case presented by the
prosecution and accepted by the trial court can be said
to be a case in which, ultimately the convict stands for
fair chances of acquittal. If the answer to the abovesaid
question is to be in the affirmative, as a necessary
corollary, we shall have to say that, if ultimately the
convict appears to be entitled to have an acquittal at
the hands of this Court, he should not be kept behind
the bars for a pretty long time till the conclusion of the
appeal, which usually takes very long for decision and
disposal. However, while undertaking the exercise to
ascertain whether the convict has fair chances of
acquittal, what is to be looked into is something
palpable. To put it in other words, something which is
very apparent or gross on the face of the record, on the
basis of which, the court can arrive at a prima facie
satisfaction that the conviction may not be
sustainable. The appellate court should not
reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section
389 CrPC and try to pick up a few lacunae or
loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution.
Such would not be a correct approach.”
36. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid settled position
that in the case of post-conviction bail, by suspension of
operation of the sentence, the question of presumption of
innocence does not arise and further in cases involving
conviction under Section 302IPC, it is only in exceptional
cases that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be
granted.
– 17 –
37. This Court, after having discussed the factual and legal
issues and as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the
view that the present interlocutory application is fit to be
dismissed.
38. Accordingly, I.A. No. 7196 of 2025 stands rejected.
39. Since the aforesaid observation of this Court is
primafacie consideration for suspension of sentence only
therefore, it is made clear that any observation made
hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit
since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Birendra / A.F.R.
– 18 –
[ad_2]
Source link