Rojan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 1327 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rojan Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 February, 2026

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen, Gautam Kumar Choudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.809 of 2023
                                   -----
           Rojan Ansari, S/o Malauddin Ansari, R/o Village Makka Bariyatu, P.O.
           & P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga, presently residing at Village
           Takurdih, P.O. & P.S. Chatra, District Chatra (Jharkhand)
                                                       ... Appellant(s).
                                   Versus
           The State of Jharkhand
                                                       ... Respondent(s).

           CORAM          :   SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

------

           For the Appellant(s)    : Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
           For the State           : Mr. Satish Prasad, AddI. P.P.
                                   .........

08 /19.02.2026:     I.A. No.16490 of 2025

This interlocutory application has been filed by the appellant, praying therein to suspend the sentence and release him on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

2. The appellant is renewing his prayer for bail on the ground that he is in custody from 04.03.2021.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced in connection with S.T. Case No.82 of 2006 'S', for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 364/149 and 302/149 of IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 302/149 of IPC along with other sentences.

4. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment, the evidence and the Trial Court Records.

5. Opportunity was given to the State to oppose the bail, which the State availed and opposed.

6. Before proceeding any further, one admitted fact which needs to be noted is that the appellant was absconding during trial.

7. The allegation against the appellant which has been supported by the prosecution witnesses is that this appellant and others entered the house of the informant, dragged their family members and after boulting the lock shot dead all of them. There are eye-witness to the occurrence who had taken the name of this appellant and the medical evidence also corroborates the offence.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhotelal Yadav Vs State of Jharkhand & Anr." reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3062 has held in paragraph 16 that while dealing with suspension of sentence of life imprisonment the only consideration should be whether the convict is in a position to point out something very palpable or there is a very gross error in the judgment of Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make a good case and, on that ground, alone he be acquitted.

It is necessary to quote paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

16. What could be those exceptional circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those exceptional circumstances as may be pointed out by the State. However, the only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court 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 and he be acquitted.

In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph No.17 has held that the High Court unfortunately did not take into consideration the aforesaid principle governing suspension of substance order of sentence of life imprisonment.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Jamnalal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.", reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1641, relying upon the judgement of "Omprakash Sahni Vs.

Jai Shankar Chaudhary, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123" has reiterated the aforesaid principle. Several paragraphs of the judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) was extensively quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgment. We are inclined to quote paragraph 33 of the judgment of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) which is as below:-

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."

10. Thus, from the aforesaid judgment also it is clear that the appellant should come up with some cogent and strong material in his favour which would ultimately result in his acquittal. If there has a fair chance of acquittal, then ultimately sentenced can be suspended. It has been further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.33 of Omprakash Sahni (Supra) that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 Cr.P.C. and try to pick up a few lacuna and loopholes here and there in the case of the prosecution which should not be the correct approach.

11. Considering the aforesaid judgment, we are not in a position to consider the application of the appellant as there is overwhelming evidence against the appellant for committing the crime.