SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 67

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Ajay Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 56 of 2025|I.A. No. 15856 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Kumar Trivedi
For the Respondents: Saket Kumar

Parity is not a sole criterion for post-conviction bail. In cases of serious offences like murder, suspension of sentence requires proof of gross error in the trial judgment, as the presumption of innocence is superseded by the finding of guilt, making suspension an exceptional remedy.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 430(1) - Code of Criminal Procedure/Indian Penal Code - Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 384 - Suspension of sentence - Application for bail pending appeal - Principles of parity - Mere grant of bail to a co-accused on specific grounds does not confer an automatic right to another accused if they stand on different footings or where the court has already adjudicated the application on merit - Principles of vicarious liability in unlawful assembly. (Paras 1, 3, 20, 31, 33)

(B) Criminal Appeal - Suspension of sentence - Post-conviction - Unlike pre-trial arrest where presumption of innocence applies, post-conviction cases require proof of palpable or gross error in the trial court judgment to warrant suspension of life imprisonment - Exceptionally, suspension of sentence is reserved for cases involving substantial legal infirmity. (Paras 20, 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an interlocutory application seeking suspension of sentence during the pendency of the criminal appeal against conviction under sections related to murder, rioting, and extortion. The request was based primarily on the ground of parity, noting that a co-accused had been granted bail by the superior court. The trial court had previously convicted the accused based on eye-witness testimonies identifying the participation of several individuals in a fatal assault during a land dispute.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the appellant's role was substantiated by witnesses who testified that the accused acted as part of an unlawful assembly, using lethal weapons to assault the deceased. The court held that the conviction for the crime of murder and the associated assessment of evidence by the trial court did not show any immediate, glaring, or perverse error that would justify the suspension of a life sentence at this appellate stage.

Issues: The main issues were whether the principle of parity with a co-accused provides an automatic entitlement to suspension of sentence for a convict and whether the existing evidentiary record necessitates the suspension of a life sentence pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Parity is not a sole or absolute criterion for granting bail in post-conviction scenarios. The court must evaluate the gravity of the offence, the specific role of the individual, and the existence of a prima facie case. In the absence of a change in circumstances or demonstrating a palpable error in the trial judgment, the court declined the prayer for suspension of sentence.

Result: Application for suspension of sentence dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual allegations of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant plea for bail based on parity and evidentiary challenges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. state's opposition emphasizing gravity of offense and settled bail law. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court’s analysis regarding parity, culpability, and bail guidelines. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

I.A. No. 15856 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant no.1 under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Dhanbad in S.T. Case No. 224 of 2008, in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 235 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- U/s 302/149 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for another six months. The appellant no.1 has further been directed to undergo R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- U/s 148 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, S.I. for another two months.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the fardbeyan by one Raj Kumar Singh, the informant, read as under:

Raj Kumar Singh has given written report before officer-in-charge, Dhanbad P.S. stating therein that before 20 days he along with his brother Sanjay Singh had gone to his purchased land at Jay Prakash Nagar for fixing gate.

Meanwhile, Ajay Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Sanjay Singh and Ujjwal Singh came there and threatened them and Ajay Singh said that he would not allow them to fix gate without permission of Rajendra bhaiya and asked them to meet Rajendra at the house for taking permission for any construction there failing which they would face dire consequences. Due to some important work, they couldn't go to meet Rajendra Singh.

It is further alleged that on 03.04.2007 at about 11:00 a.m., he along with his brother Sanjay Singh, son Neeraj Singh, nephew Reshu Kumar Singh, Shobha Ranjan Singh and Shikha Sinha went to fix the gate on the purchased land at Jay Prakash Nagar.

The accused persons namely Ajay Singh, Vijay Pratap Singh, Rewat Singh, Ashu Singh, Sanjay Singh, Ujjwal Singh, Ajay Singh and Bhuneshwar Singh along with 20 to 25 persons were already present armed with rifle, gun, sword, spear, axe, iron rod etc., who surrounded them and threatened them for dire consequences as they didn't come to meet them even after warning.

Ajay Singh demanded rangdari of Rs.10 lacs and stated that after the payment of rangdari only he would allow them to fix the gate on this land.

When the informant's brother namely Sanjay Singh objected, Ajay Singh told to his sons and nephews that Rajendra bhaiya and Binod bhaiya have instructed to kill them and thereafter accused persons started assaulting the informant party. Vijay Pratap Singh gave a blow with sword hitting the head of the informant's brother due to which his brother fell down bleeding profusely. Then Ajay Singh started crushing his abdomen with foot and also assaulted him on his head with iron rod.

The informant and his driver rushed to save the injured, then Sanjay Singh S/o Rajendra Singh and Ashu Singh assaulted the driver with iron rod on his head causing head injury and when he raised alarm, then local people gathered there and the accused persons fled away.

Thereafter, the informant with the help of some people, brought his brother to police station from where he was sent to Sadar Hospital, Dhanbad and from there, he was sent to Central Hospital, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad for better treatment. Later the injured succumbed to his injuries.

3. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. The ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top