Jharkhand High Court
Abarique Ansari @ Chhotu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.365 of 2022
-----
Abarique Ansari @ Chhotu, son of Nezam Ansari, PO Village Kisko
Ambatoli, PS Kisko, District Lohardaga ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
With
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.628 of 2020
-----
Shakil Ansari ... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
......
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP
.........
09 /20.11.2025: I.A. No. 11053 of 2025 in Cr.A.(DB) No. 365 of 2022
By filing this interlocutory application, the appellant has
renewed his prayer to suspend the sentence and release him on
bail during pendency of this appeal.
2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2018. He has been
convicted for the offences under sections 302 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code and section 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the
Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and
fine of Rs. 30,000/- under section 302 read with Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code and other sentences for other offences.
3. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State and have gone through the impugned
judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.
4. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail,
which the State availed and opposed.
5. Earlier by a reasoned order on 16.07.2024 the application
for suspension of sentence of the appellant has been rejected. The
reasoning finds place in paragraph 5 of the earlier order dated
16.07.2024. This Court considered the statements of PW1 and
PW8 and arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner does not
deserve bail as he was one of the persons who had taken the
deceased along with him and thereafter shot him.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant refers to two orders of
the coordinate Bench of this Court in which bail has been
granted to some of the co-accused. The first order was passed in
06.07.2021 which was prior to the earlier rejection order
16.07.2024 by this Court and the second order does not contain
any reason for granting bail whereas the order passed by us
contains reasons as to why the application of the petitioner was
rejected.
7. This is an application under section 389 of the Criminal
Procedure Code read with section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3409
of 2025 titled "Aasif @ Pasha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others" in paragraph 10 and 14 had categorised two types of
sentences, one being fixed term and other being life
imprisonment. It is also held that when the punishment is of life
sentence the approach for consideration for suspension of
sentence would be different.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently in Criminal
Appeal No. 4804 of 2025 titled "Chhotelal Yadav vs. State of
Jharkhand and Another" in paragraph 16 has held that the only
consideration that should weigh with the appellate Court while
considering the plea for suspension of the sentence of life
imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point
out something very palpable or a very gross error in the
judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to
make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal
deserves to be allowed and he may be acquitted.
10. In this case considering the statements of PW1 and PW8,
we are of the opinion that no such good ground is made out as
envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Chhotelal Yadav" (supra).
11. The only ground taken by the appellant is that he is in
custody for six years.
12. On the aforesaid ground, we are not inclined to release this
appellant on bail.
13. I.A. No. 11053 of 2025 is dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
20.11.2025
Tanuj/-
