JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor on the application for suspension of sentences. Perused the material available on record. 2. The appellant-applicant herein stands convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act and vide judgment dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No.18/2018 (CIS No.22/2018). 3. Learned counsel Shri Deora pointed out that the FIR (Ex.P-1) was lodged after a significant delay of eight days from the incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 14.12.2015. The statement of the victim PW-2 Mst.'Y' regarding manner in which the incident took place, is palpably unbelievable. He further contended that victim admitted in her cross examination that her uncle's son was the Sarpanch of the village and that he was on inimical terms with the accused. He further submitted that the school certificate regarding admission of the victim in the Ist Standard was not proved by the prosecution and hence, there is no plausible evidence on record to establish that the victim was less than 18 years of age on the date of incident. He urges that hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time and prays that the appellant, who was on bail during the course of trial and did not misuse the liberty so granted to him, deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the appeal as well. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced at Bar by appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the FIR was lodged after a delay of eight days and there is no plausible explanation for such delay. 5. On a perusal of the evidence of the victim, this Court notices numerous inherent probabilities in the said statement which, entitles the applicant-appellant to be admitted to bail during the pendency of the appeal. 6. 5. On a perusal of the evidence of the victim, this Court notices numerous inherent probabilities in the said statement which, entitles the applicant-appellant to be admitted to bail during the pendency of the appeal. 6. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Rajsamand, vide judgment dated 31.08.2019 in Sessions Case No.18/2018 (CIS No.22/2018) against the appellant-applicant Narain Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh shall remain suspended till final disposal of the aforesaid appeal and he shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in this court on 16.01.2020 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. That he/she/they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 2. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, he/she/they will give in writing his/her/their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 3. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s), they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 7. The learned trial Court shall keep the record of attendance of the accused-applicant(s) in a separate file. Such file be registered as Criminal Misc. Case related to original case in which the accused-applicant(s) was/were tried and convicted. A copy of this order shall also be placed in that file for ready reference. Criminal Misc. file shall not be taken into account for statistical purpose relating to pendency and disposal of cases in the trial court. In case the said accused applicant(s) does not appear before the trial court, the learned trial Judge shall report the matter to the High Court for cancellation of bail.