Jharkhand High Court
Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1111 of 2024
With
I.A. No. 11778 of 2025
---------
Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam Sharma son of
Rambriksh Sharma, resident of Village-Madarsa Road Unchari, P.O.
& P.S. & District Garhwa.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar-III, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
-----------
th
03/Dated: 25 September, 2025
I.A. No. 11778 of 2025:
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of
appellant, under Section 430 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for suspension of
sentence in connection with the Judgment of conviction dated
13.08.2024 and order of sentence dated 16.08.2024 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa in S.T. Case No. 358 of 2022, in
connection with Garhwa P.S. Case No. 329 of 2022, whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC
along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he
has further been directed to undergo R.I. for six months; the
appellant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the
offence under Section 120(B) of IPC along with fine of Rs.20,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to
undergo R.I. for six months. Both the sentences have been directed
to run concurrently.
Submission on behalf of the appellant:
2. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset,
has submitted that the prayer for suspension of sentence of the
appellant has already been dealt with by this Court vide order dated
04.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3045 of 2025 which had been
dismissed.
3. Thereafter, the present interlocutory application has been filed on
behalf of appellant 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.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
investigating officer, in his deposition, has stated that the deceased
was shot by two persons who were killed by mob and whose dead
body was found at the place of occurrence as also the gun by which
the deceased was shot, has been recovered from the possession of
Krishna Paswan and Santosh Chandravanshi.
5. It has also been submitted that there is contradiction in the deposition
of the prosecution witnesses regarding the place of occurrence,
manner of occurrence and the weapon used in the occurrence as also
that it has been stated by the P.W.-7, P.W.-8, P.W.-9 and P.W.-10
before the investigating officer that they reached the place of
occurrence after the incident.
6. The ground of custody has also been taken since the appellant is
languishing in judicial custody since 06.07.2022.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the aforesaid premise, has
submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence so
that the appellant be released from judicial custody.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
8. While on the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the
prayer for suspension of sentence.
9. It has been submitted that witnesses have fully supported the case of
the prosecution and have stated the incident in the same manner and
the testimony of P.W.-3 is very specific regarding the culpability of
the present appellant.
10. It has also been submitted that this Court, on earlier occasion, had
already rejected the prayer for suspension of the present appellant on
merit vide order dated 04.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3045 of 2025
by taking into consideration the culpability of the present appellant.
11. It has also been submitted that, on earlier occasion, the ground of
parity was also raised as the co-accused persons, namely, Madan
Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil
Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil had been granted
bail vide order dated 27.02.2025 passed in I.A. Nos.10583 of 2024
[Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024], I.A. No.11285 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB)
Nos.1194 of 2024] and I.A. No.1592 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1264
of 2024] respectively and this Court had considered the order passed
in favour of the co-accused persons and found from the submission
advanced on behalf of the appellants in the said appeals that the
names of Shyamraj Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam Sharma (the
present appellant); Anil Paswan @ Bhikhu Paswan and; Anil Ram @
Deepak had been disclosed by the deceased to P.W.-3, as such, the
said co-accused persons, on the aforesaid fact, were granted the
privilege of bail. This Court, by taking into consideration the said
fact, had rejected the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present
appellant vide order dated 04.04.2025.
12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that by
renewing the prayer for suspension of sentence, no fresh ground has
been agitated to be considered by this Court, as such, on the
aforesaid premise, it has been submitted that, it is not a fit case for
suspension of sentence, hence, the present interlocutory application
may be rejected.
Analysis:
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appreciated the
submission made on behalf of both the parties.
14. Admittedly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present
applicant has been rejected on merit by this Court vide order dated
04.04.2025 passed in I.A. No. 3045 of 2025 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. For
ready reference the relevant part of the aforesaid order is being
quoted as under:
"14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the
impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as
available in the Lower Court Records and other material exhibits
appended therewith.
15. We have also considered the order passed by this Court dated
27.02.2025 in in I.A. Nos.10583 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of
2024], I.A. No.11285 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1194 of 2024] and
I.A. No.1592 of 2024 [Cr. A (DB) Nos.1264 of 2024] preferred by
Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari
and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil
respectively.
16. The issue of the parity has been taken as one of the grounds for
suspension of sentence with the co-convicts, namely, Madan
Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md. Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil
Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil Khan @ Sakil.
17. 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."
18. 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 (A15). 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."
19. 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.
20. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law the
Court has gone through the order passed by this Court dated
27.02.2025 in I.A. Nos.10583 of 2024, 11285 of 2024 and 1592 of
2024 in Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of 2024, 1194 of 2024 and 1264 of
2024 respectively and found therefrom particularly from
paragraph No. 3 of the said order wherein the argument was
advanced by the learned counsel who is the same counsel
appearing in the present case also that, the names of Shyamraj
Sharma @ Pankaj Sharma @ Shyam Sharma (present
applicant/appellant), Anil Paswan @ Bhikhu Paswan and Anil
Ram @ Deepak had been disclosed by the deceased to P.W.3.
21. The argument therefore was advanced that the name of the
appellants, namely, Madan Chandravanshi @ Madan Ram, Md.
Asif @ Pintu Ansari and Sakil Ansari @ Sakil Ahmad @ Shakil
Khan @ Sakil in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1147 of 2024, Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.1194 of 2024 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1264 of 2024
respectively had not been disclosed by P.W.3.
22. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission by
referring the testimony of P.W.3 at paragraph 8 and has allowed
the application filed on behalf of the said co-convicts for
suspension of sentence.
23. This Court, taking in to consideration that since the names of
the present appellant has been disclosed by the deceased to P.W.3
and further from the testimony of P.W.3 particularly in cross-
examination, it is evident that at the time when the deceased was
being carried to the hospital, he was having all sense, is of the view
that the issue of parity, which has been tried to be drawn from the
order passed by this Court dated 27.02.2025 in I.A. Nos.10583 of
2024, 11285 of 2024 and 1592 of 2024 in Cr. A (DB) Nos.1147 of
2024, 1194 of 2024 and 1264 of 2024 is not applicable herein.
24. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the specific
attributability of the present applicant/appellant has been proved
by the P.W.3 and as such, it is not a fit case where the sentence is
to be suspended.
25. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not
prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is lying
pending before this Court for its consideration.
26. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands
dismissed."
15. It is evident from the aforesaid order that this Court has dismissed
the prayer for suspension of the sentence of the present applicant by
specifically observing that the name of the present appellant had
been disclosed by the deceased to the P.W.-3 and further from the
testimony of P.W.-3, it is evident that at the time when the deceased
was being taken to the hospital, he was having sense.
16.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."
17.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.
18.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.
19. On the basis of discussion made hereinabove, it is considered view
of this Court that since on earlier occasion, the prayer for suspension
of sentence of the present 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 suspension of sentence of the
applicant/appellant or not and this Court, based upon the discussion
made hereinabove, is of the considered view that there is no change
of circumstance (factual or legal) available herein as no fresh ground
has been agitated herein by renewing the prayer for grant of bail.
20. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is not a case where the
prayer for suspension of the sentence is to be allowed.
21. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application stands dismissed.
22. 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.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
25th September, 2025
Saurabh/-
