Dharmendra Kumar Rai @ Dharmendra Rai @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2685 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Dharmendra Kumar Rai @ Dharmendra Rai @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 April, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                   Cr.Appeal (DB) No.1499 of 2024
                                   -----

Dharmendra Kumar Rai @ Dharmendra Rai @ Darmendra Kumar Rai @ Darmendra Rai aged about 32 years, son of late Mahadeo Rai resident of village Raundhiya @ Rondhiya, PO and PS: Sariyahat, District:

Dumka.                                               ...Appellant
                                 Versus
The State of Jharkhand                             ......Respondent
                                 -----

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HO'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

-------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate For the Respondent(s):Mr.Saket Kumar, APP

-------

th Order No.07/Dated:6 April, 2026

I.A. No. 4307 of 2026

1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of

sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2024 and order

of sentence dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge,

(POCSO), Dumka, in connection with POCSO Case No. 21/2018,

arising out of Sariyahat P.S. Case No. 76 of 2018, whereby and

whereunder the appellant along with one co-accused have been

convicted under Section 376 (D) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6

of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a

fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further

directed to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 6 of the POCSO Act

and further directed that if the entire fine amount is realized from the

convicts,it would be paid to the prosecutrix and the period of

imprisonment already undergone during trial would be set off.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that earlierprayer for

suspension of sentence of the applicant was rejected by this court vide

order dated 21.01.2025 passed in I.A. No. 11229 of 2024. Now the

applicant has renewed his prayer on the ground of parity and has

submitted that another co-convict, namely, Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil

Singh has been released on bail after suspension of sentence, by the

coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 17.11.2025 passed in

I.A. No. 13725 of 2025 arising out of Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 1154 of 2024.

3. It has been contended that the coordinate Bench of this court has

suspended the sentence of the said co-convict by taking into

consideration the discrepancies and contradictionsevidence of the

witnesses as were pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant

and also the period of custody undergone by him.

4. It has further been contended that the allegation against the present

applicant is identical in nature to that of the co-convict Anil Kumar

Singh and, therefore, he may also be released on bail on the ground of

parity.

5. On the other hand,Mr. Saket Kumar, the learned counsel appearing

for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the

applicant.

6. It has been submitted that earlier while rejecting the prayer for

suspension of sentence of the applicant, this court has considered the

testimonies of the witnesses as also the testimony of PW-5, the victim,

and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has

corroborated the prosecution version.

7. It has further been contended that now the present applicant/appellant

has renewed his prayer for suspension of sentence only on the ground of

parity as co-convict namely Anil Kumar Singh has been granted bail by

a coordinate Bench of this Court.

8. It has further been contended that from perusal of the order dated

17.11.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) N0. 1154 of 2024, it would be

evident that there is no consideration of the order dated 21.01.2025

passed by this court by which bail of the present applicant was rejected

on merit. Therefore, it is evident thatthere is no consideration of the

testimony of PW-5, the victim and her statement under section 164

Cr.P.C. which were taken as a ground by this court for rejecting the

prayer for suspension of sentence of the present applicant. Therefore,

submission has been made that it is a case where the principle of parity

is not applicable.

9. We have heard the learned counsel(s) appearing for the parties

and has gone through the material available on record.

10. The allegation against the applicant is for the offence

punishable under sections 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code and section 6

of the POCSO Act.

11. The prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant has

already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 21.1.2025 passed in

I.A. No. 11229 of 2024. This Court has taken into consideration the

testimony of PW-5, the victim as also in order to have the view of

corroboration of the said testimony,this court has also considered her

statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and based upon the same

the prayer for suspension of sentence has been rejected, for ready

reference the said order is being referred herein under:

"Order No. 06/ Dated: 21stJanuary, 2025

1. This instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence against the Judgment of conviction dated 25.05.2024 and order of sentence dated 27.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, (POCSO), Dumka, in connection with POCSO Case No. 21/2018, arising out of Sariyahat P.S. Case No. 76 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant along with one co- accused have been convicted under Section 376 (D) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo S.I. for one year under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and further directed that if the entire fine amount is realized from the convicts would be paid to the prosecutrix and the period of imprisonment already undergone during trial would be set off.

2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has not been said to be able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. It has further been submitted that Doctor has not found any sign of rape at the time when the victim was medically examined.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is therefore a fit case for suspension of sentence.

4. While on the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence and has contended by referring to the testimony of P. W.-5, the victim who has fully supported the prosecution version and remained consistent throughout the cross- examination. It has further been submitted that even the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has supported the prosecution version and as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned Judgment as also the testimonies of the witnesses available in the LCR and other material exhibits available therein.

6. This Court after going through the testimony of P.W.-5, the victim who has fully supported the prosecution version as reported in the fardbeyan/FIR. The said version is also in support of the statement

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The victim has thoroughly been cross-examined where she also remained consistent.

7. This Court considering the aforesaid grounds is of the view that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

8. In consequence thereof, the instant interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 11229 of 2024 stands rejected and as such disposed of.

9. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this Court for its consideration."

12. The present application has been filed renewing the prayer for

suspension of sentence on the basis of applicability of the principle of

parity. We are conscious that in a matter of grant of bail or suspension of

sentence, the principle of parity is to be made applicable as per the law

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

13. It requires to refer herein that this Court is conscious with the

settled position of law that the issue of parity, is to be taken into

consideration but the same is to be taken into consideration by applying

the factual aspect along with the surrounding facts, as has been held 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."

14. 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 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.

VishanbhaiHirabhai 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 nonapplication 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 [PravinbhaiHirabhai 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."

15. It is evident from the law led down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case referred herein above that while applying the principle of

parity this court is to consider all surrounding facts based upon the

evidence and if it is found that the case of the applicant is identically

placed to that of the co-convict and by taking into consideration the

entire facts then certainly by applying the principle of parity, the order

should be passed.

16. This Court is now proceeding to assess as to whether the

principle of parity is applicable in the facts of the present case or not.

17. It needs to refer herein that this Court has already passed an

order on 21.1.2025 in I.A. No. 11229 of 2024,as quoted herein above,

rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence of the applicant.

Thereafter, another co-convict, namely, Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh

has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 13725 of 2025 in

Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 1154 of 2024 and the coordinate Bench of this court

has allowed the same vide order dated 17.11.2025, a copy of the said

order has been placedbefore this court. For ready reference the relevant

paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:

7. In consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and the discrepancies and contradictions which have been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant as also the period of custody undergone by the appellant, we are inclined to admit the appellant on bail. Accordingly, during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant namely Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Singh is directed to be released on bail 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 Special Judge (P.O.C.S.O.), Dumka, in P.O.C.S.O. Case No.21 of 2018 arising out of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No.76 of 2018.

8. I.A. No.13725 of 2025 is allowed accordingly.

18. On perusal of the aforesaid order, we found that the coordinate

Bench of this court has passed an order on consideration of the evidence

of the witnesses and the discrepancies and contradictions which have

been pointed out by the learned counsel for the said co-convict as also

the period of custody undergone bythe said co-convict. Before coming to

the conclusion there is no reference as to whether the fact which was

pointed out regarding discrepancies and corroborationsis being

corroborated from the evidence or not.

19. Further the ground has been agitated on behalf of the learned

State counsel that on the basis of the testimony of PW-5, the victim,

which is in corroboration to her statement recorded under section 164

Cr.P.C. based upon which this court has earlier rejected the prayer for

suspension of sentence of the present applicant but perhaps the said

order has not placed before the co-ordinate bench and if the said order

would have been placed before the co-ordinate Bench, then the finding

of the co-ordinate Bench would be different.

20. This Court considered the said argument to be sustainable,

since, from the testimony of PW-5, the victim, who has supported the

prosecution version, it is evident that the testimony of the victim is in

corroboration to the statement of victim recorded under section 164

Cr.P.C.

21. It is further evident that the order which we have passed

rejecting the prayer for suspension of sentence is dated 21.1.2025 in IA

No. 11229 of 2024 but said order has not been placed before the

coordinate Bench even though the order was passed on 17.11.2025 in IA

No. 13725 of 2025 [Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 1154 of 2024]. Since the order

of rejection of the prayer for suspension of sentence of the present

applicant has not been placed before the coordinate Bench and, as such,

on that count the principle of parity is not applicable. It also appears

from the order passed by the coordinate Bench that there is no reference

of the order passed by this court on 21.1.2025 in IA No. 11229 of 2024.

22. Further the coordinate Bench has considered the suspension of

sentence also on the ground of custody, since, the applicant has

remained in custody for about 7 years and 7 months. This court is of the

view that it is a case where the present applicant has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life then the question is how can the

sentence of 7 years and 7 months is to be considered to be sufficient

ground for suspension of sentence.

23. Law is well-settled that the period of custody for some years

against the punishment of life imprisonment cannot be a ground for

suspension of sentence rather the principle which is to be made

applicable is based upon the principle of balance, i.e., to maintain the

rule of law and personal liberty.

24. It is the settled position of law that the period of custody cannot

be the sole ground for suspension of sentence, rather, the nature of crime

as has been found to be proved against one or the other, the appellant

herein, is to be taken into consideration and even if the convict has

completed substantive sentence, that cannot be a sole ground

forsuspension of sentence if the nature of offence having been proved in

course of trial is serious.

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi v. State

of U.P. &Anr. 2024 INSC 343 has categorically observed that mere

factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular period and

likelihood of delay in disposal of cases, in a case where life

imprisonment is imposed, cannot be a reason for invocation of power

u/s. 389 without referring to the relevant factors and each case has to be

examined on its own merits and based on the given parameters.

26. Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhotelal

Yadav versus state of Jharkhand &Anr. [CRIMINAL APPEAL

NO.4804/2025 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15688/2025] has

observed that while considering the plea for suspension of 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.

27. Since in the instant case there is grave allegation against the

present appellant/applicant that he has committed rape therefore this

Court is of the view that the alleged crime comes under the purview of

heinous crime, hence as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P. &Anr.(supra), the

prayer for suspension of the present appellant is not fit to be allowed.

28. This Court in the entirefacts and circumstances as referred

herein above is of the view that the present application is to be rejected

and, as such, it is rejected.

29. I.A. No. 4307of 2026 stands dismissed.

30. The Member Secretary, DLSA, Dumka is directed to submit a

report on the issue of compensation as to whether the same has been

paid or not in view of the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

31. Let this matter be placed on the issue of disbursement of

amount of compensation on 21.4.2026.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(sanjay Prasad, J.)

Date:6thApril, 2026 KNR/