Jharkhand High Court
Ramjee Bhuian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1530 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 6925 of 2025
---------
Ramjee Bhuian, aged about 31 years, son of Ramtahal Bhuiyan, r/o
village-Araru Kala, P.O. & P.S.- Hariharganj, Dist.-Palamu, State-
Jharkhand.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
-----------
CAV/Reserved on 15.09.2025 Pronounced on 25//09/2025
I.A. No. 6925 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application, under Section 430(1) of BNSS,
2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant for suspension of
sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated
02.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial
No.14 of 2018, in connection with Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 61 of
2017, whereby and whereunder, the applicant has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month u/s 341/34 IPC alongwith
fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further
been directed to undergo S.I. for one month; the applicant has also
been sentenced for life imprisonment u/s 302/34 IPC alongwith fine
of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo S.I. for 03 months; the applicant has also been
directed to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 323/34 IPC alongwith fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo S.I. for one month; the applicant has also been
directed to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 504/34 IPC alongwith fine
of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further been
directed to undergo S.I. for one month. All the sentences have been
directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, requires to be referred herein which
read as under:
The prosecution case is that Hariharganj P.S case no. 61/2017
dated 10.08.2017 u/s 341, 323, 302, 504/34 of IPC was registered on
the basis of fardbeyan of informant Usha Kuar alleging therein that
on 10.08.2017 at about 8.00 p.m when her husband returned home
and she told him to take meal, in the meantime Pramod Bhuian,
came with lathi and suddenly started assaulting her husband and
thereafter Kamta Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Mukul Bhuian, Mohar
Bhuian, Ajit Bhuian, Ramji Bhuian, and wives of Pramod Bhuian
and Mukul Bhuian came with lathi and they also started abusing and
assaulting her husband due to which her husband sustained head
injury and became seriously injured and died on spot. It is also
alleged that in course of assault, when she and Jitendra Singh tried to
pacify the dispute, they were also assaulted by the accused persons
and became injured. It is also alleged that occurrence took place due
to land dispute.
3. The I.O. investigated the case and after completion of investigation
submitted charge sheet no. 97/2017 dated 07.11.2017 under section
341, 323, 302, 504/34 IPC against accused Pramod Bhuian,
Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajit Bhuian, Ramji Bhuian keeping investigation
pending against accused Mukul Bhuian and exonerating other
accused persons showing lack of evidence. Supplementary charge
sheet no. 14/2018 dated 31-01-2018 was submitted against accused
Mukul Bhuian u/s 341, 323, 302, 504/34 IPC.
4. Accordingly, the trial proceeded and the present applicant was found
guilty by the learned trial court and accordingly, has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month u/s 341/34 IPC
alongwith fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, he has
further been directed to undergo S.I. for one month; the applicant has
also been sentenced for life imprisonment u/s 302/34 IPC alongwith
fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further
been directed to undergo S.I. for 03 months; the applicant has also
been directed to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 323/34 IPC alongwith
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further
been directed to undergo S.I. for one month; the applicant has also
been directed to undergo R.I. for one year u/s 504/34 IPC alongwith
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has further
been directed to undergo S.I. for one month.
5. The present application has been filed on behalf of applicant for
suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.
Submission on behalf of the Applicant:
6. Mr. Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset,
has submitted that earlier the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
present applicant had been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court
vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 12836 of 2024.
7. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of applicant 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 as the applicant is innocent
and has falsely been implicated in this case.
8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that
there was no recovery of the murder weapon from the place of
occurrence and the prosecution case is based on the testimonies of
related witnesses, i.e., P.W.-1 (brother of the deceased); P.W.-2
(sister-in-law of the deceased); P.W.-3 (brother of the deceased) and;
P.W.-5 (wife of the deceased) and there is contradiction in their
testimonies as the P.W.-5 has stated the time of occurrence to be
10:30 pm whereas the P.W.-5 has stated the time of occurrence to be
08:00 pm.
It is also submitted that the independent witnesses, i.e., P.W.-4
and P.W.-8 have become hostile.
9. It has also been contended that the co-accused persons, namely,
Pramod Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajeet Bhuian @ Ajit Bhuian
and Mukul Bhuian have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 5128 of
2025 [Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1562 of 2024].
10. The ground of custody has also been taken as the applicant is
languishing in judicial custody since 02.09.2024.
11. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so
that the applicant be released from judicial custody.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
12. While on the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence.
13. It has been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have fully
supported the prosecution case as the P.W.-5 (wife of the deceased)
had also sustained injuries during assault by the accused persons
upon the deceased and on hulla when P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 came out of
the house, then P.W.-1 was also assaulted by the accused persons
due to which P.W.-1 also sustained injury.
14. The fact of bail having been granted in favour of the co-accused
persons, namely, Pramod Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajeet Bhuian
@ Ajit Bhuian and Mukul Bhuian has not been disputed by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent, 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:
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties as also gone through
the trial court record.
17. It needs to refer herein that earlier the prayer for suspension of
sentence of the present applicant had been dismissed as withdrawn
by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed in I.A. No. 12836
of 2024. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been
filed renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence during
pendency of the appeal.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much emphasis on the
fact that identically placed co-accused persons have already been
granted bail during pendency of the appeal. The copy of the said
order has been placed before this Court for its perusal.
19. This Court has found from the said order that the co-accused
persons, namely, Pramod Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajeet Bhuian
@ Ajit Bhuian and Mukul Bhuian have been granted bail, during
pendency of the appeal, by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 23.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 5128 of 2025 [Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1562 of 2024] by taking into consideration that the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature, against the said
applicants, as also that there is a land dispute which resulted in such
assault.
20. Since the learned counsel for the applicant has raised the ground of
parity, therefore, it is the bounden duty of the Court to scrutinize the
said ground.
21. 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."
22. 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."
23. 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.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law and in
order to find out the culpability against the present applicant, this
Court has gone through the impugned judgment, wherefrom it is
evident that the allegation has been levelled that Pramod Bhuian,
came with lathi and suddenly started assaulting the husband of the
informant and thereafter Kamta Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Mukul
Bhuian, Mohar Bhuian, Ajit Bhuian, Ramji Bhuian (present
applicant), and wives of Pramod Bhuian and Mukul Bhuian came
with lathi and they also started abusing and assaulting the husband of
the informant due to which her husband sustained head injury and
became seriously injured and died on spot.
25. Further, from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is
evident that they all have stated in the same manner as has been
stated by the informant. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that
the allegation against the present applicant and other co-accused
persons, namely, Pramod Bhuian, Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajeet Bhuian
@ Ajit Bhuian and Mukul Bhuian are on identical footing.
26. This Court, in view of the aforesaid and also taking into
consideration the fact that the co-convict, namely, Pramod Bhuian,
Jagnarayan Bhuian, Ajeet Bhuian @ Ajit Bhuian and Mukul Bhuian
have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 5128 of 2025
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1562 of 2024], prima facie, is of the view that
the present interlocutory application deserves to be allowed.
27. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed, as
such, disposed of.
28. In view thereof, the applicant, named above, is directed to be
released on bail, during pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with Sessions Trial No. 14 of
2018, arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 61 of 2017.
29. 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.)
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
25th September, 2025
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
