Post-Conviction Bail Distinct from Pre-Trial Bail: Jharkhand HC Reiterates Limits of Parity
Ajay Singh & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand
Facts of the Case
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302/149 and 148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, appellant no.1 (Ajay Singh) filed an application for suspension of sentence, which had already been rejected once on merits. The present application was a renewed request mainly on the ground of parity, as a co-accused had been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Issues /Questions Before the Court
Whether the sentence of the appellant (Ajay Singh) should be suspended during the pendency of the criminal appeal under Section 430(1) BNSS, 2023.
Whether parity with a co-accused, whose sentence was suspended by the Supreme Court, constitutes a sufficient ground for suspension of sentence.
Whether there was any change in circumstances after the earlier rejection of the suspension application.
Court’s Observations
The Court observed that the earlier application for suspension of sentence had been rejected on merits after detailed consideration of evidence.
The appellant failed to show any change in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
The Court held that parity is not an absolute rule and cannot be the sole ground for suspension of sentence, especially when the role and culpability of the accused differ.
The evidence on record, particularly eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, prima facie established the appellant’s active role as a main aggressor.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that post-conviction bail stands on a different footing than pre-trial bail, as presumption of innocence no longer applies.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court judgments holding that suspension of sentence in murder cases is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
Holding / Decision
The High Court held that:
There was no fresh or exceptional ground to justify suspension of sentence.
The appellant’s role in the crime was serious and well-supported by evidence.
The ground of parity alone was insufficient.
Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence was dismissed, and the life sentence of the appellant was ordered to continue during the pendency of the appeal.
