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 -