Jharkhand High Court
Avinash Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 710 of 2023
with
I.A. No. 10086 of 2025
---------
Avinash Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o. Raj Ballabh Sharma, R/o
Qr. No. 95/2/2 Road No. 7, P.O. & P.S. R.I.T, Adityapur, District:-
Saraikela- Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Harshit Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Kumar Rahul, Advocate
: Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
-----------
CAV on 1st August, 2025 Pronounced on _21st _August, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:
I.A. No. 10086 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under Section
430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for keeping the
sentence in abeyance in connection with the judgment of conviction
dated 21.02.2023 and order of sentence dated 27.02.2023 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge - IV, Jamshedpur in Session
Trial No. 367 of 2016 arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 228 of
2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of
Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 302/120-B of
IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced
to undergo RI for 3 years; the appellant has further been sentenced
to undergo RI for 5 years for the offence punishable under Sections
201/34 of IPC and he has further been sentenced to undergo RI for 5
years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the written report of the informant
is as under:
The prosecution case, on the basis of written report of
informant namely Ranju Devi (PW 25), W/o Late Ram Shakal
Prasad (deceased) is that on 01.08.2015 at about 04.45 am, as
usual, her husband Ram Shakal Prasad (deceased) left his house
by his car bearing registration no. OD 2F-3914 and took his friend
Chandra Shekhar Verma (PW 1) and proceeded towards Jubilee
Park. It is further alleged that at about 5.40 am, she received a call
of her husband from the mobile of Chandra Shekhar Verma (PW1)
bearing mobile no. xxxxxx2701, who informed that accused A1,
Sandeep Tapadia along with other miscreants, have fired on him
and after getting the said information, the informant and her
family members arrived at the place of occurrence and came to
know that her husband had been taken to T.M.H Hospital and
when the informant reached to T.M.H. Hospital, then she came to
know that her husband had died. It has further been alleged that
her husband Ram Shakal Prasad (deceased) had a construction
firm in the name of R.S. Construction and the accused persons
namely Sandeep Tapadia, A1 and Munna Tapadia also have
construction business in the name of Tapadia Construction and
her husband and accused persons used to do construction work in
joint venture at Bistupur and at some other places and during the
course of business, dispute arose among them with regard to
payment of money and the husband of informant locked some
flats, which was fallen in his share and prior to the occurrence, the
three accused persons had broken the locks of said flats and had
taken possession over the same, upon which, her husband
demanded his share of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- then the accused persons
namely Sandeep Tapadia, and Munna Tapadia had replied that
instead of giving his share, they would invest rupees five-ten lakhs
for getting her husband murdered and accordingly, her husband
has been murdered by the said accused persons.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid, FIR being Bistupur P.S. Case No. 228 of
2015 was instituted and the police took up investigation into the
case and accordingly chargesheet was submitted against the present
appellant.
4. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses,
examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement
of the accused person and found the charges levelled against the
appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
5. Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the
offence punishable under Sections 302/120-B of IPC and in default
of payment of fine, he has further been sentenced to undergo RI for 3
years; the appellant has further been sentenced to undergo RI for 5
years for the offence punishable under Sections 201/34 of IPC and
he has further been sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years for the
offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
6. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the
applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant:
7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that
on earlier occasion also, the appellant had moved before this Court
for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No. 4261 of 2023 which has
been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2023.
8. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the FIR was
instituted on 01.08.2015, but the same was produced in the Court on
04.08.2015 after preparing it on thought by making correction in the
station diary.
9. It has been contended that the appellant was in judicial custody from
04.08.2015 till his release on 13.06.2017 and again he has gone into
custody on 21.02.2023 and since then, he is languishing in judicial
custody but the appellant never misused the privilege of bail earlier
granted in his favour.
10. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant that witness No. 1 has stated that firstly his
statement was recorded by the police officer in T.M.H. Hospital,
thereafter, written report of witness no. 25, who is the informant of
the case had given and as such, for one incidence, two FIR cannot be
lodged, which is not appropriate in the eye of law.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the other
co-accused/appellant namely Vicky Tapadia and Nitesh Kumar
Tiwary has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated
25.04.2025 and 13.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2436 of 2025 in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2023 and in I.A. No. 5834 of 2025
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 599 of 2023 , therefore the present
appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail after suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where the sentence is to be
suspended so that the appellant be released on bail.
Arguments advanced by the learned State counsel:
13. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by the counsel for the appellant for grant of bail during
pendency of the appeal.
14. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that witness no.
26, who is the I.O. of the said case has stated that the written report
of the witness no. 25, who is the informant, has been received in the
morning at 8:40 o'clock and on that basis, the instant case has been
registered.
15. Further, it has been contended that the IO, who was the then officer-
in-charge of Bistupur Police Station had received information that
near the Gate No. 2 at Jubilee Park incidence of firing has done, then
he lodged Sanha and proceeded to the said place of incidence and
from there, he went to T.M.H. Hospital, received the written report of
informant and as such, for not producing the FIR before the court on
time, the entire prosecution case cannot be falsified.
16. 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 applicant is different to the
applicant of the said appeal and further the order of rejection of the
earlier bail order dated 30.10.2023 has not placed before the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court when the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the aforesaid co-convicts was being adjudicated,
therefore, the ground of parity, as taken by learned counsel for the
petitioner is not available herein.
17. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case where the appellant
deserves the privilege of bail by suspension of sentence.
Analysis:
18. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given
our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar
and have carefully gone through the finding recorded by the learned
trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the
witnesses and the material placed on record.
19. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that this is the second attempt
of the applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during
pendency of the instant appeal by filing the instant application.
20. It requires to refer herein that earlier the appellant/applicant had
moved before this Court for suspension of sentence by filing I.A. No.
4261 of 2023 which has been dismissed on merit after due
consideration of the materials available on record vide order dated
30.10.2023. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid order is being quoted as under:
"14. From perusal of the record, it is evident that in the instant
case, on the basis of confessional statement of another accused,
namely Nitesh Kumar that one iron made 7.62 mm regular pistol
fitted with 6 live cartridges and one mobile no 86519558341 have
been recovered from the conscious possession of
accused/appellant, namely, Avinash Kumar and accordingly
seizure list was prepared and this fact has already been fortified by
the testimonies of P.Ws. 7,8, 11, 18,19 and P.W.26, the Investigating
Officer.
15. P.W.7, S.K. Malakar had deposed that he was posted as A.S.I in
Bistupur Police Station and the confessional statement of accused
Nitesh Kumar has been recorded by the then Officer-in-Charge, in
which, he had disclosed that co-accused Upendra Singh hired the
shooters, namely, Pankaj Singh, Mani Kumar, Rohit Kumar and two
others and they were staying in the house of co-accused Upendra
Singh since five days and they had seen the location of Jubilee park
to them by two motorcycles and he has further disclosed that the
appellant and other accused has gone to take meal by the said
Motor-Cycle .
16. This witness further deposed that on the basis of the
confessional statement Officer-in-Charge with police forces after
taking accused Nitesh reached to Diagnol Road, where they found
that two persons were sitting on motorcycle near one Jhoprinuma
Hotel and the Nitesh Kumar disclosed that these two persons are
accused and as such, both the said accused persons were caught
hold by the police force and on inquiry, they disclosed their names
as Avinash Kumar (appellant herein) and Pankaj Kumar Sharma
and upon search, a pistol from left waist of the appellant has been
recovered and after opening the Magazine of the said pistol, six live
loaded cartridges were found , accordingly, seizure-list of seized
materials have been prepared and sealed at the place of
occurrence in presence of two independent witnesses, namely,
Umesh Yadav and Ajay Kumar. The confessional statement of
accused, namely Nitesh Kumar, has been marked as Ext. 4.
17. Thus, it is evident from the testimony of P.W.7 that the arms
and ammunitions have been seized from the conscious possession
of the present appellant and this fact has already been
substantiated by the other prosecution witnesses.
18. The foremost argument which has been advanced on behalf of
appellant is that for the offences under section 120(B)/34 of IPC,
no evidence has been produced against the appellant by the
prosecution except his role in this case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused.
19. In the context of the argument as advanced by the learned
senior counsel, it is pertinent to reiterate the settled legal
proposition that in cases of conspiracy to commit a crime, usually it
is very difficult for the prosecution to adduce direct evidence, since
conspiracy is not an open affair, therefore, the prosecution has to
rely upon evidence pertaining to the acts of various parties to
prove such an agreement of conspiracy on the basis of
circumstantial evidence which can be inferred by necessary
implication.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions has
observed that for an offence punishable under section 120B of the
IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the
propagators expressly agree to do or carried to be done an illegal
act and such agreement may be proved by necessary implication to
be determined from the circumstantial evidence brought on record.
The most important aspect of the offence of conspiracy is that
apart from being a distinct statutory offence, all the parties to
conspiracy are liable for the acts of each other.
22. Now coming back to the fact of the instant case, it is evident
from the testimony of P.W.26 Jitendra Kumar, Investigating Officer
of the instant case has testified in his testimony that the another
accused Nitesh Kumar in his confessional statement has stated that
the two motorcycles and arms were taken by appellant and other
accused persons and the same had kept in his house and one motor
cycle had reached in the house of Upendra Singh on his direction
and one motor cycle, arms and ammunition is with
accused/appellant Avinash and Pankaj who has gone for taking
meal.
23. This witness has further deposed in para-27 that he along with
police party went to Bistupur Market on the basis of disclosure of,
he saw that two persons were sitting on one motorcycle bearing
no. JH 5BD 9736 and he along with police party stopped them and
searched both of them and from the possession of
accused/appellant, namely, Avinash, a loaded pistol of 7.62 m.m
fitted with magazine along with one mobile phone nos.
8651958241 and 0122379982 were recovered and accordingly,
seizure-list were prepared with respect to the said seized materials
and arrested both of them. He has further deposed in para-55 that
SFSL report received and he gone through the said report and it is
written in the said report that the empty cartridge which had been
recovered from the place of occurrence was fired from the fire
arms which had been seized in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 243/15 and it
has been proved in the SFSL Report and both seized arms in
effective condition.
24. It has also been pointed out that in the present case for
committing the offence of murder, the co-accused had hired the
shooters to kill the deceased and this appellant along with co
accused persons were amongst them as evident from the
depositions of P.W.7 read with Ext.4 and Ext.4/1. 25. Therefore,
from the above facts, scrutinized oral and documentary evidences
available on the record, prima-facie indicates the participation of
accused/appellant in commission of said offence.
26. Considering the same, we are of the view that it is not a case
where the sentence is to be suspended.
27. Accordingly, interlocutory application being I.A. No.4261 of
2023 stands dismissed.
21. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the Co-ordinate Bench has
taken note of the culpability of the present applicant as one iron
made 7.62 mm regular pistol fitted with 6 live cartridges have been
recovered from the conscious possession of accused/appellant,
namely, Avinash Kumar. The co-ordinate Bench has also taken note
of fact that as per the testimony of I.O. recorded at para-55 that in
the SFSL report it has been written that the empty cartridge which
had been recovered from the place of occurrence was fired from the
fire arms which had been seized in Bistupur P.S. Case No. 243/15.
22. Further it is also evident from the aforesaid order that the co-
ordinate Bench after taking into consideration the principle of
presumption of innocence rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Preet Pal Singh V. State of U.P. (2020) 8 SCC 645 which is not
available to present applicant since he has already been convicted by
the learned trial court has rejected the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the present applicant.
23. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court while adjudicating the issue of
suspension of sentence of the applicant/appellant has taken in to
consideration the material available on record and had meticulously
examined the evidence and the contentions as raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant and thereafter passed the well merited
order, therefore it is considered view of this Court that no fresh
grounds have been made out by the applicant/appellant for grant of
bail by suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal
save and except the issue of parity.
24. In the aforesaid context it is bounden duty of this Court to examine
the issue of parity which has been raised by the learned counsel for
the applicant.
25. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has contended that
the other co-accused namely Vicky Tapadia and Nitesh Kumar
Tiwary has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated
25.04.2025 and 13.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2436 of 2025 in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2023 and in I.A. No. 5834 of 2025
in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 599 of 2023, therefore the present
appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail after suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.
26. After hearing the argument of both the parties it is evident that the
learned counsel for the appellant/applicant 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.
27. 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."
28. 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 n 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, 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."
29. 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.
30. 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 the co-accused namely Viky Tapadia has been granted bail.
For ready reference, the relevant portion of order dated 25.04.2025
passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2023 passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench is quoted as under:
Order dated 25.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 2436 of 2025
(Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2023:
It appears from perusal of the evidence of the witnesses that
though P.W.-1 has been declared hostile on the point of
identification and P.W.-23 claims to be an eyewitness but he has
failed to identify the appellant as the person who was involved in
commission of murder of Ramshakal Prasad.
Regard being had to 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 Addl. Sessions
Judge-IV, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in connection with S.T.
Case No. 367 of 2016, arising out of Bistupur P.S. Case No. 228 of
2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 2415 of 2015.
31. It appears from the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order, that
the Co-ordinate Bench considering the non-identification of the said
accused by PW.1, has admitted the said accused/appellant on bail. It
is further evident from the aforesaid order that neither the learned
APP nor the learned counsel for the said accused/appellant has place
the bail rejection order dated 30.10.2023 of the present
applicant/appellant Avinash kumar before the co-ordinate Bench.
However, from the perusal of order dated 30.10.2023 it is the
evident that the co-ordinate bench has taken into consideration of
the SFSL report and has dismissed the prayer for suspension of
sentence of present applicant thus the ground of parity is not
available to this appellant/applicant against the other co-accused
namely Vicky Tapadia.
32. Now, coming to the second order dated 13.06.2025 passed in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 599 of 2023 by which appellant namely
Nitesh Kumar Tiwary has been granted bail by suspension of
sentence during pendency of the appeal.For ready reference the
relevant part of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:
It has been submitted by Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant that P.W. 1 and P.W. 23 have
been projected by the prosecution to be the eye witnesses,
but so far as P.W. 1 is concerned, he has been declared
hostile by the prosecution on the point of identification and
P.W. 23 has not identified the appellant. Mr. Singh submits
that the additional feature so far as the present appellant
is concerned is of the arms recovered from his possession,
which according to the prosecution was handed over by
the assailants to one Munmun Singh who in turn had
handed over the same to the appellant. Learned counsel
submits that co-convict Vicky Tapadia has been granted
bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 460 of 2023.
Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
appellant.
Regard being had to the fact that the identification of
the appellant by P.W. 1 and P.W. 23 is clearly doubted
and considering the fact one of the co-convict almost
similarly situated having been granted bail by this Court,
we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly,
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) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court
[Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Jamshedpur] in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 367 of 2016.
This I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.
33. It appears from the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order, that
herein also on the same logic the Co-ordinate Bench considering the
non-identification of the said accused by PW.1, has admitted the said
accused/appellant on bail. It is further evident from the aforesaid
order that neither the learned APP nor the learned counsel for the
said accused/appellant has place the bail rejection order dated
30.10.2023 of the present applicant/appellant Avinash kumar before
the co-ordinate Bench.
34. Thus, from all the aforesaid orders it is evident that the Co-ordinate
Bench has enlarged the aforesaid co-convicts on bail by taking into
consideration the non-identification of the said accused persons by
P.W1 by suspending their sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Further, from perusal of the aforesaid orders as quoted and referred
hereinabove neither the learned APP nor the learned counsel for the
said accused/appellant has place the bail rejection order dated
30.10.2023 of the present applicant/appellant Avinash kumar before
the co-ordinate Bench.
35. In the order dated 30.10.2023 the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has specifically taken into consideration the fact that the from the
conscious possession of present applicant one iron made 7.62 mm
regular pistol fitted with 6 live cartridges have been recovered and
further it has come in the SFSL report that the empty cartridge
which had been recovered from the place of occurrence was fired
from the fire arms which had been seized in Bistupur P.S. Case No.
243/15 and has rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
present applicant .
36. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is evident that issue of parity
is not available herein and further no fresh grounds have been made
out by the applicant/appellant for grant of bail by suspension of
sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. Further we
discussed herein above that earlier the prayer of suspension of
sentence of the present applicant has been rejected by the Co-
ordinate Bench after taking in to consideration the material
available on record and had meticulously examined all the evidences
available and thereafter passed the well merited orders.
37. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this Court is
of the considered view that since, the prayer of suspension of
sentence of the appellant has been rejected earlier by the Co-
ordinate Bench after meticulous examination of all the evidences
available on merit, and further, no new ground is available on record
for fresh consideration, the instant application lacks merit, therefore
it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
38. Accordingly, I.A. No. 10086 of 2025 stands rejected.
39. Since the aforesaid observation of this Court is of prima facie
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, J.)
I agree,
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Samarth/
