Jharkhand High Court
Bihari Koiri 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. 695 of 2023
----
1.Bihari Koiri
2.Harihar Koiri
3.Durga Koiri
4.Rajendra Yadav
5.Sakindar @ Sakindra @ Satendra Yadav @ Satindar Yadav
@ Stendra Yadav.
6.Ramnath Yadav
7.Uday Yadav
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
--------
nd
Order No. 10: Dated 22 July, 2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad A.C.J.
I.A. No. 8275 of 2025
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed
under Section 430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of appellant no. 4- Rajendra Yadav,
appellant no. 5- Sakindar @ Sakindra @ Satendra Yadav @
Satindar Yadav @ Stendra Yadav and appellant no. 6-
Ramnath Yadav, for suspension of sentence dated
10.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagar Untari, District Garhwa in Sessions Trial No. 217 of
2014 arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 12 of 1997
corresponding to G.R. No.73 of 1997, whereby and
whereunder, the convicts including the appellants herein,
Bihari Koiri, Satendra Yadav, Harihar Koiri, Durga Koiri,
Rajendra Yadav, Sakindar Ramnath Yadav and Uday Yadav
have been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life
and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) for the
offence u/s 302/149 of the IPC and in default of payment of
fine they have further been directed to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for the period of Three year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) for the offence u/s 27 of the
Arms Act and in default of payment of fine amount they are
directed to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
period of Two months in addition. The period already
undergone was directed to be set off as per law. All the
sentences shall run concurrently.
Factual Matrix
2. The prosecution case in brief is that, in the night of
16.02.1997 at about 11:00 pm, the informant along-with her
family members were sleeping inside the room in her house
after taking meal and the door of east side was closed inside.
The persons called out three to four times by taking the name
of her elder son Lalit Kumar Mehta for open the door but he
said that he doesn't recognize voice, he did not open the door.
Thereafter, sound of thak-thak and the door was broken and
5-6 extremists in uniform entered in her courtyard armed
with weapon and inquired about her husband.
3. The extremists also pressurize them to execute sale
deed in villagers and threatened to face consequences to
Chandrika Mahto. Thereafter, two extremists entered into
daba, her husband climbed on the roof to save himself but
they caught hold her husband and lock the sikari (Iron hold)
of courtyard. Her younger son Ajay Kumar was hiding in the
wood outside the house, who opened the door and said that
father was taken towards west hill.
4. The villagers came but not help due to fear, they also
not searched that time due to fear. They do not heard sound
due to marriage lagan. On next day, at about 7:00 am, during
searched they went to Audhaia Bishunpura Ghat, Banki
Nahar pool and see that her husband was laying in dead
condition. There is blood coming out of his chest. Thereafter,
the police officers of Bishunpura camp come there.
5. The cause for the murder that a quarrel took place
between informant's villagers, Ramyad Koiri, Bihari koiri,
Durga Koiri, Rajendra Yadav, Sakindra Yadav, Ram Nath
Yadav, Uday Yadav, Harihar Mahto and Jagdish Mahto before
9-10 months, they are along-with the member of extremists
squad Ramji @ Ramjanam Rajwar assaulted her husband
and murdered him. She claims that the above people, who
are her villagers called the extremists and shot and murdered
her husband. Thereafter, informant gave her fardbeyan before
Nagar Untari Police.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Nagar Untari
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 Nagar Untari P.S.
Case No.- 12/1997, dated 17.02.1997, corresponding to G.R.
Case No.- 73/1997 and after due investigation police
submitted charge-sheet.
7. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa took
cognizance of the case and committed the case to the Court of
Sessions for trial.
8. The prosecution in order to prove its case has adduced
8 witnesses and also exhibited documents and the learned
trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the
charges levelled against the present applicants along with
other accused proved beyond reasonable doubt and
accordingly the present applicant has been convicted and
sentenced as mentioned above.
9. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred
by the appellant no. 4- Rajendra Yadav, appellant no. 5-
Sakindar @ Sakindra @ Satendra Yadav @ Satindar Yadav @
Stendra Yadav and appellant no. 6- Ramnath Yadav, with a
prayer for suspension of sentence during pendency of the
instant appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants:
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that
earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of appellant nos.
4,5 and 6 has been rejected vide order dated 04.03.2024 in
I.A. No. 1270 of 2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
11. The prayer for suspension of sentence has been renewed
mainly on the ground of parity making submission that
similarly situated co-convict, namely, Harihar Koiri has been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.
No. 10916 of 2023 vide order dated 30.01.2024 as also co-
convict namely Bihari Loiri, Durga Loiri and Uday Yadav have
been granted bail in I.A. No. 5126 of 2025 vide order dated
28.04.2025 and the case of the appellants nos. 4,5 and 6,
who are applicants at present stands on similar footing.
12. Besides that, submission has been made that the
appellant nos. 4 and 6 are old aged persons suffering from
various old age ailments and they need proper care and
treatment.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the appellants no. 4,5,
and 6 may be released on bail by suspending the sentence
during pendency of the instant appeal.
Submission of the learned APP for the state:
14. While on the other hand, learned APP appearing for the
State has opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
15. 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 Co-ordinate Bench
did not consider the earlier rejection order of bail passed in
favour of appellant nos. 4,5 and 6 and since the rejection
order of bail of appellant nos. 4,5 and 6 have not been
appreciated by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, the ground
of parity, as taken by learned counsel for the petitioner has
no leg to stand.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent state, therefore, has
submitted that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.
Analysis
17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
appreciated the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties.
18. After hearing the argument of both the parties it is
evident that the learned counsel for the appellants 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
applicants, i.e., appellant nos. 4,5 and 6 deserve to be
enlarged on bail after suspension of sentence during
pendency of the instant appeal.
19. 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."
20. 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
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."
21. 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.
22. 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 30.01.2024 passed in I.A. No. 100916 of 2023
"Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the State on the prayer for suspension of
sentence made on behalf of the appellant no. 2-Harihar Koiri
through I.A. No. 10916 of 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I
for life for the offences under sections 302/149 of the I.P.C
and section 27 of the Arms Act. He has submitted that there
is allegation against 5-6 persons who are said to be the
extremists that they had attacked the house of the deceased,
taken him to the place of occurrence and thereafter shot and
killed him. Learned counsel further submits that most of the
prosecution witnesses have claimed to be present at the
place of occurrence and stated that the accused persons had
taken the deceased from his house. However, they have not
testified to have actually seen the occurrence. Learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that the only witness
who claimed to have seen the occurrence is P.W-5 who in
para-3 has clearly stated that this appellant-Harihar Koiri
had dragged the deceased but he refused to shoot his father.
Based on the clear-cut evidence of P.W-5 who claims to be
the eyewitness to the occurrence, prayer for suspension of
sentence may be allowed to this appellant. He has further
submitted that this appellant was all along on bail during the
trial. He has further submitted that this appellant is aged
about 90 years and considering his age, his prayer for
suspension of sentence may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for
suspension of sentence and submits that this appellant was
one of the members of the extremist group which attacked
the house of the deceased and he was also amongst the
person who dragged the deceased to the place of occurrence
where he was shot dead by other accused. Therefore, this
appellant cannot escape the liability in murder of the
deceased and his prayer for suspension of sentence may not
be allowed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the lower court records and also considering
the materials placed from the record, we are inclined to
release the appellant no. 2 on bail. Accordingly, appellant no.
2-Harihar Koiri, shall be released on bail, during the
pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.
- 10 -
25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagar Untari, District Garhwa in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 217 of 2014 arising out of
Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 12 of 1997 corresponding to G.R.
No. 73 of 1997, subject to the condition that the appellant no.
2 shall submit self-attested photocopy of his Aadhar Card
and mobile number (s) before the learned court below which
he will always keep active and will not change it during the
pendency of this case without prior permission of the learned
court below.
5. I.A. No. 10916 of 2023 stands disposed of."
23. It appears from paragraph 4, wherefrom it is evident
that the Co-ordinate Bench did not consider the fact that
earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6
have been rejected vide order dated 04.03.2024 in I.A. No.
1270 of 2024. Therefore, it is evident that there is non-
consideration of the fact by the Co-ordinate Bench that
earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant
nos. 4,5 and have been rejected vide order dated 04.03.2024
in I.A. No. 1270 of 2024. Further from the aforesaid order it is
evident that the co-ordinate Bench while taking in to
consideration the old age of the said appellant no. 2-Harihar
Koiri has enlarged him on Bail by suspending his sentence. It
is evident from the aforesaid order that the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has further taken into consideration the
testimony of P.W-5 who in para-3 has clearly stated that this
appellant-Harihar Koiri had dragged the deceased but he
refused to shoot his father.
- 11 -
24. Now, coming to the second order dated 28.04.2025
passed in I.A. No. 5126 of 2025 by which appellant nos. 1,3
and 7 have been granted bail during pendency of the appeal.
For ready reference, the said order is quoted as under:
Order dated 28.04.2025 passed in I. A. No. 5126 of 2025
"Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant nos. 1, 3 & 7 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar,
learned P.P. appearing for the State.
This interlocutory application has been preferred by
the appellant nos. 1, 3 & 7 for grant of bail to them during
the pendency of this appeal.
The prayer for bail of the aforesaid appellants was
earlier dismissed as withdrawn in I. A. No. 5196 of 2024.
Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellants that P.W. 5 who is the eye-witness had
stated about the accused persons including the appellants
abducting his father. It has further been submitted that one
of the co-convicts namely, Harihar Koiri, who is the appellant
no. 2 in the present appeal has been granted bail by a
coordinate Bench of this court in I. A. No. 10916 of 2023.
Learned P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for
bail of the appellants.
It appears that the appellant no. 2 as well as the
present appellants were said to have been involved in
abducting the father of the informant who has subsequently
found dead. It also appears from the evidence of P.W. 5 that
it was Shiv Kumar who had shot at his father. On
consideration of the aforesaid facts, we are inclined to admit
the appellants on bail.
Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the
appellant nos. 1, 3 & 7 abovenamed are directed to be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each, to
the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagar Untari in connection with S. T. No. 217 of 2014 arising
out of Nagar Untari P. S. Case No. 12 of 1997.
- 12 -
I. A. No. 5126 of 2025 stands disposed of."
25. It appears though the Court has gone into the merit of
the case in one paragraph regarding the involvement of the
applicants before the Co-ordinate Bench 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 did not consider the fact that earlier the prayer for bail
of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been rejected vide order
dated 04.03.2024 in I.A. No. 1270 of 2024. Therefore, it is
evident that there is non-consideration of the fact by the Co-
ordinate Bench that earlier the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and have been rejected
vide order dated 04.03.2024 in I.A. No. 1270 of 2024.
26. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid orders that Co-
ordinate Bench neither of the parties and even the learned
State Counsel has not brought to the knowledge of the Co-
ordinate Bench that earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant
nos. 4, 5 and 6 have been rejected vide order dated
04.03.2024 in I.A. No. 1270 of 2024 and without considering
this facts, the prayer for grant of bail during pendency of the
appeal was granted.
27. This Court, in view of the aforesaid on the basis of
discussion made hereinabove and by applying the proposition
laid down for the purpose of applicability of principle of
parity, is of the view that since the earlier rejection of prayer
- 13 -
for bail of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 vide order dated
04.03.2024 in I.A. No. 1270 of 2024 has not been brought to
the notice of Co-ordinate Bench and the same was also not
taken into consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench, the case
at hand would not come under the ambit of giving benefit of
parity.
28. Since, on the merit of the matter, earlier the prayer for
suspension of sentence has been rejected of the appellant
nos. 4, 5 and 6 vide order dated 04.03.2024 in I.A. No. 1270
of 2024 by this Court, and the ground of parity has been
negated by this Court and no new ground has been agitated
by learned counsel for the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6,
therefore, we do not find merit in the instant Interlocutory
Application.
29. 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.
30. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8275 of 2025 stands rejected.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Alankar/
A.F.R.
- 14 -
