Jharkhand High Court

Chetni Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 408 of 2020
                                   With
                          I.A. No. 8746 of 2025
                                  ---------

1. Chetni Devi, aged about 60 years, wife of Munshi Yadav.

2. Pratima Devi aged about 45 years, wife of Sudhir Yadav. Both resident of Village-Kakraula P.O. + P.S. Chauparan, District- Hazaribag.

3. Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat aged about 32 years, daughter of Dular Yadav resident of Village-Petadari, P.O. + P.S.-Mayurhand, District- Chatra.

                                                      ... ... Appellants
                                  Versus
   The State of Jharkhand                            ... ... Respondent
                                  ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

----------

For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P. P. For the Informant : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Kumar, Advocate

-----------

nd 21/Dated: 02 September, 2025

I.A. No. 8746 of 2025:

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of

appellant no.2, namely, Pratima Devi, under Section 389(1) of

Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence in connection with the Judgment

of conviction dated 28.01.2020 and order of sentence dated

11.02.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI,

Hazaribag in S.T. Case No. 65 of 2019 / S.T. Case No.277 of 2019,

in connection with Chauparan P.S. Case No. 282 of 2018, whereby

and whereunder, the appellant no.2 has been convicted and sentenced

to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also awarded fine of

Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and

in default of payment of fine, the appellant has further been directed

to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years. Further the appellant

has been directed to undergo sentence of ten years and fine of Rs.

10,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 364 of the I.P.C. and in

default of payment of fine, has further been directed to undergo

simple imprisonment for one year.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the

fardbeyan by one Awinash Kumar, the informant, read as under:

It has been stated that Munshi Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Ram

Prawesh Yadav, Chetni Devi w/o Munshi Yadav, Pratima Devi w/o

Sudhir Yadav, Usha Daughter of Dular Yadav, Chotu Yadav, Ajit

Yadav, Aditya Kumar Yadav, Anil Yadav, Niranjan Yadav, Akash

Yadav and Sikander Yadav are resident of village Kakraula. Sumit

Kumar was resident of village Karni, Distt. Chatra who was his

nephew (Bhanja) and he used to reside at his ancestral village Karma

for his study and was student of a School at Chauparan. On

02.11.2018 at about 3:30 p.m., Sumit Kumar called him by a phone

no. xxxxxx0161 on mobile phone no. xxxxxx7779 and said that

Munshi Yadav, Sudhir Yadav, Ram Prawesh Yadav were assaulting

him on his head by means of a rod and two women were thumping

his stomach. Chotu Yadav, Aditya Kumar, Anil Yadav, etc were

assaulting him by means of a P.V.C. pipe on his back and waist.

They handed over his mobile to Sumit and asked him to call anyone

whom he wanted to call and said that he was alive only for some

time and thereafter, snatched the mobile from his hand. The

informant has stated that at the time he was at Ranchi and he tried to

reconnect with the said mobile but could not succeed and therefore,

he called the officer-in-charge chauparan and informed him about the

occurrence. It is said that the Officer-in-charge immediately

proceeded from the police station and reached village Kakraula,

Bano More and recovered Sumit Kumar in a very serious and injured

condition from the house of Dular Yadav by opening the door of his

house and took him to P.H.C. Chauparan. Dr. Yogendra Singh gave

him first aid and noting the serious condition of the injured referred

him to RIMS, Ranchi. His uncle Raj Kumar Chandrawanshi and

Karuna Chandrawanshi were present besides the other and Raj

Kumar Chandrawanshi took him to Ranchi where the informant was

present with his several friends and the injured was admitted in the

clinic of Dr. Vijay Raj, Neurologist. He has stated that his nephew

Sumit Kumar looked at him and narrated about the occurrence in a

stuttering voice which was heard by his friends Abhisek Singh,

Pankaj Kumar, Sanni Kumar Sinha @ Sidhartha and thereafter,

Sumit Kumar became unconscious. His nephew along with two

friends namely, Suman Kumar Keshri and Awinash Kumar had gone

on a scooty bearing registration no. J.H. 02 AS 6076 and in that

course Chotu Yadav, Ram Prawesh Yadav etc. having formed a

group forcibly took him from village Machla by assaulting him to the

house of Sudhir Yadav. Several persons standing on the road had

witnessed the occurrence. Certain persons raised objections but the

accused were armed with traditional weapons committed his

kidnapping and caused the occurrence. He has stated that after the

occurrence it came to his knowledge that all the accused persons

having hatched a conspiracy committed kidnapping of his nephew

and committed the crime due to which he died at about 6:45 am at

Raj Hospital, Ranchi in the course of treatment.

3. On the basis of fard-bayan of the informant Chauparan P.S. Case no.

282/18 dated 03.11.2018 was registered and the police started

investigation upon completion of which submitted two separate

charge-sheets, being charge sheet no. 01/19 in S.T. case no. 65/19

against four accused persons and charge sheet no 88/19 in S.T. case

no. 277/19 against two accused persons u/s 364/302/34 of the I.P.C.

Accordingly, the Learned J.M. took cognizance of the offence under

the above mentioned sections and committed the case record to the

Session's Court for favour of trial.

4. Upon appearance of the accused persons namely, Chetni Devi,

Sudhir Yadav, Ram Pravesh Yadav, Pratima Devi in S.T. Case no.

65/19 on dated 06.04.2019 and against Munshi Yadav and Usha in

S.T. case no. 277/19 on 29.07.2019 charge u/s 364, 302/34 of the

I.P.C was framed contents of which was explained to them in Hindi

to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the appellants were found guilty

by the learned trial court and consequently, have been convicted and

sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and also

awarded fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, the appellant

has further been directed to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two

years. Further the appellant has been directed to undergo sentence of

ten years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 364

of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, has further been

directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

6. The present interlocutory application has been preferred for

suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

Submission on behalf of the appellant no.2:

7. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellant no.2, at

the outset, has submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence

of all the appellants has already been dealt with by the co-ordinate

Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.07.2021 passed in I.A. No.

3772 of 2020 which had been dismissed as not pressed.

8. Thereafter, again the prayer for suspension of sentence had been

renewed by filing I.A. No. 7384 of 2023 on behalf of the appellant

nos.1 and 2 which had been rejected by this Court vide order dated

11.03.2024.

9. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on

behalf of appellant no.2 renewing the prayer for suspension of

sentence on the ground that the judgment of conviction is without

considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed to take into

consideration the fact that there are major contradictions amongst the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and only interested witnesses

have been examined in this case.

11. It has further been submitted that the learned trial court has failed to

take into consideration the fact that the D.W.-3 has stated that the

deceased having entered her house, outrage her modesty and

therefore, she assaulted him with water heater and iron chholni

causing injuries on his head and she had informed to the police but

her case was not registered and on 05.11.2018, on the direction of

S.P., Hazaribag, her case was registered. As such, the injury was first

caused to D.W.-3 and then the mob having come to know this fact,

has caused the murder of the deceased.

12. The ground of parity has also been taken as the appellant no.3 has

already been granted the privilege of bail by suspension of sentence

during pendency of the appeal vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed by

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No. 3043 of 2025.

13. The ground of custody has also been taken since the appellant no.2

has remained in custody from 04.11.2018 to 31.12.2018 and since

the date of judgment of conviction, she is languishing in judicial

custody.

14. Learned counsel for the appellant no.2, on the aforesaid premise, has

submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so

that the appellant no.2 be released from judicial custody.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent:

15. While on the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that in this case

there are two different places of occurrence and the examined

witnesses of the prosecution have consistently and thoroughly

corroborated the facts regarding the place, time and manner of

occurrence. They have clearly supported the facts that the deceased

was caught and kidnapped by the accused persons and was brought

to the house of Dular Yadav, where he was severely beaten up by

various tools used as a weapon and thereby, he was murdered.

16. So far as the ground of contradiction in the testimony of the

witnesses is concerned, as has been submitted by the learned counsel

for the appellant no.2, it is submitted that the minor contradictions do

not have any bearing on the prosecution case and they are bound to

occur in the evidence inasmuch as lot of reasons are attributed to

such contradictions such as time passed after the occurrence, natural

loss of memory, the understanding of the witnesses and their ability

to comprehend the facts, their understanding of the questions put by

the learned counsel and submitted that merely because certain

contradictions have occurred in the prosecution case, it does not

necessarily falsify the same.

17. Learned state counsel on the point of parity has submitted that co-

convict Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat, against whom parity is

claimed, has been granted bail vide order dated 07.05.2025 passed by

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No. 3043 of 2025 and on

perusal of aforesaid order it is evident that the prayer for suspension

has been granted by the co-ordinate Bench to the said co-convict by

taking into consideration her medical condition, therefore, parity is

not available to the present applicant.

18. The learned state counsel has submitted that the earlier prayer for

suspension of the said co-convict has been rejected vide order dated

14.06.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench on merit after due

consideration of specific culpability of the said co-convict in the

alleged commission of crime and this Court taking into consideration

the aforesaid order dated 14.06.2022 has rejected the prayer for

suspension of sentence of the present applicant/appellant vide order

dated 11.03.2024, and since the prayer of the suspension of sentence

of the present applicant has been rejected on merit after due

consideration of the culpability of the present applicant in the alleged

commission of crime, as such, the interference of this Court is not

required herein as no fresh ground on the fact of law is available

herein.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent/state, on the aforesaid premise,

has submitted that, therefore, it is not a fit case for suspension of

sentence, as such, the present interlocutory application may be

rejected.

Analysis:

20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the

submission made on behalf of both the parties.

21. Admittedly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present

applicant has been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated

11.03.2024 passed in I.A. No. 7384 of 2023 and the said order has

not been challenged before the higher forum. Since on merit the

prayer for suspension of sentence has already been considered

therefore, it is considered view of this Court that it is not required for

this Court to advert into the merit of the instant application.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has emphasized his

argument on the issue of parity stating that other co-convict, namely,

Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat released on bail by suspension of

sentence, therefore on the ground of parity also, the present

applicants, deserve to be enlarged on bail after suspension of

sentence during pendency of the instant appeal.

23. Before adverting to the appreciation of aforesaid contention of the

learned Senior counsel for the appellant/applicant, it would be apt to

refer herein the core of parity. 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."

24. 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."

25. 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 same and

having taken into consideration by the concerned Court, then only

the principle of parity will be applicable.

26. It is apparent from record that earlier the prayer for suspension of the

sentence of the co-convict, namely, Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat

against whom parity is claimed has already been rejected after due

deliberation on merit by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 14.06.2022 passed in I.A. No. 6636 of 2021. For ready

reference the relevant part of the said order is being quoted as under:

"On consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through

the evidence of the witnesses, it appears that all the eye witnesses have stated about the participation of the appellant no. 3 in committing the assault upon the nephew of the informant. The postmortem report also reveals a number of injuries found on the person of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, we are not inclined to admit the appellant no. 3 on bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant no. 3 is, hereby, rejected.

I.A. No. 6636 of 2021 stands rejected."

27. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court has categorically taken into consideration the culpability

the co-convict, namely, Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat that all the eye

witnesses have stated about the participation of the appellant no.3

(Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat) in committing the assault upon the

nephew of the informant, as such, has rejected the prayer for

suspension of sentence of the said convict.

28. Now coming to the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A. (Cr.)

No.7384 of 2023, by which the prayer of suspension of sentence of

the present applicant/appellant has been dismissed by this Court. For

ready reference the relevant part of the aforesaid order is being

quoted as under:

6. This Court, deems it fit and proper first to consider the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in I.A. No.6636 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the prayer for suspension of sentence in connection with appellant no.3, namely, Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat has already been dealt with by rejecting it so as to reach to the conclusion that the case of the appellant nos.1 and 2 is distinctly placed or identically placed.

7. This Court, in order to reach to the conclusion, has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and found therefrom that the depositions which have been made by the witnesses, are identical to that of appellant no.3, namely, Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat.

8. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant nos.1 and 2.

9. This Court, therefore, is of the view that when the case of one of the appellants, i.e., appellant no.3, namely, Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat, has already been dealt with by rejecting the same by the coordinate Bench and there is no distinction in between the facts based upon the disclosure made by the witnesses, hence, there is no reason to take distinct view.

10. Accordingly, I.A. (Cr.) No.7384 of 2023 stands dismissed.

29. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court based upon the order dated 11.03.2024 passed in I.A. (Cr.)

No.7384 of 2023 has dismissed the prayer for suspension of the

sentence of the present applicant by specifically observing that when

the case of one of the appellants, i.e., appellant no.3, namely, Usha

Devi @ Usha Mosomat, has already been dealt with by rejecting the

same by the co-ordinate Bench and there is no distinction in between

the facts based upon the disclosure made by the witnesses, hence,

there was no reason to take distinct view with the case of the present

applicant.

30. It is further apparent from the record that on behalf of co-convict

namely Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat, the prayer for suspension of

sentence was again renewed and the same had been allowed vide

order dated 07.05.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3043 of 2025. For ready

reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being

quoted as under:

It appears from the evidence of the witnesses that several persons had committed assault upon the deceased including the appellant no. 3 and it cannot be said that it was on account of the assault committed by appellant no.3 that the deceased had died. It further appears that the appellant no.3 is suffering from AIDS since more than a decade and her treatment is going on inside the jail, as per the affidavit filed by the State.

On taking into consideration the facts aforesaid apart from the fact that the appellant no. 3 is in custody for six years, accordingly, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant no. 3 is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Hazaribag in S.T. No. 277 of 2019.

31. From the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the co-ordinate Bench of

this Court vide order dated 07.05.2025 had allowed the prayer for

suspension of the sentence of the co-convict, namely, Usha Devi @

Usha Mosomat but it further appears from the aforesaid order that

the co-ordinate Bench while allowing the application for suspension

of the sentence of the co-convict has especially taken into

consideration the medical condition of the co-convict, however the

co-ordinate Bench has also observed that several persons had

committed assault upon the deceased including the appellant no. 3

and it cannot be said that it was on account of the assault committed

by appellant no. 3.

32. In the aforesaid context, this Court is of considered view that since

on earlier occasion, the prayer for suspension of the sentence of the

said co-convict has already been dismissed, on merit, by fixing the

prima facie culpability observing that all the eyewitness had

supported the role of appellant no.3 (Usha Devi @ Usha Mosomat)

in committing the assault upon the nephew of the informant but the

second application for suspension of sentence of the said co-convict

had been allowed mainly by taking into consideration the medical

condition of the said co-convict, therefore, the claim of parity by the

present applicant/appellant against the said co-convict, namely, Usha

Devi @ Usha Mosomat is not available herein.

33. Further, since it is a case under Section 302 IPC and present

appellant/applicant has been convicted for the offence of murder,

therefore, at this juncture it requires to refer herein the settled position

of law 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, reference be made to the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Omprakash Sahni v. Jai Shankar

Chaudhary, (2023) 6 SCC 123, for ready reference the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as 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 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."

34.Thus, it is evident from perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid judgment that while considering the prayer for bail, in a

case involving a serious offence like murder punishable

under Section 302 IPC, 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 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.

35.It is further evident from perusal of the relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid judgment that the appellate court should not reappreciate

the evidence at the stage of consideration of 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 and at this

stage Court is only to see the prima facie case for its satisfaction.

36.Further, 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, 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 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."

37.Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment that during

considering the prayer for suspension of sentence which is the post-

conviction stage, the presumption of innocence in favour of the

accused cannot be said to be available and at this stage, the Court's

only duty is to see whether the prima-facie case is made out or not

and, as such, the detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at

this stage.

38. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it is considered view

of this Court that since the earlier bail application of this

applicant/appellant has been rejected, on merit, therefore, the main

question for consideration is if there is any change of circumstance

(factual or legal) which requires re-consideration of the prayer for