JUDGMENT : I.A. No.4854 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant Mr. Indrajit Sinha. 2. This application has been preferred by the above named appellant for grant of bail by suspending the sentence passed against him during pendency of this appeal. 3. The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Atanu Banerjee submits that the appellant is a coach of kick boxing. The allegation of commission of rape with the victim in the capacity of her coach is absolutely false and concocted rather she was entangled with another co-player and upon objection raised by the appellant, this false case was lodged after one year of the alleged occurrence. The victim was further motivated to falsely implicate the appellant because she was not selected for participation in National Games held at Ranchi due to suitability reasons. Therefore, she was annoyed and in connivance with her friends and father, false and fabricated F.I.R. was lodged after one year of the occurrence without offering any reasonable explanation for such inordinate delay. It is further submitted that there is no iota of evidence at all that the appellant ever stayed in the room of the victim girl at any point of time at Darjeeling where alleged occurrence took place. Attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the appellant towards the evidence of P.W.6 (Pushpanjali Kumari) and P.W.4 (Naitik Kumar) that students were given separate rooms both for boys and girls. Boy players were staying along with Coach and Manager at first floor and the girl students were given room at ground floor. The investigating officer (P.W.9) has also visited the place of occurrence, but did not find any proof in support of allegations. It is further submitted that the evidence of victim (P.W.1) does not find corroboration from her medical report and other prosecution witnesses examined in this case. The investigating officer (P.W.9) has also visited the place of occurrence, but did not find any proof in support of allegations. It is further submitted that the evidence of victim (P.W.1) does not find corroboration from her medical report and other prosecution witnesses examined in this case. Victim was found to be more than 18 years on medical examination and no original birth certificate from any educational institution has been proved by the prosecution. It is further pointed out that investigating officer (P.W.9) has admitted in her evidence that during investigation, a pen drive (Ext-P7/1) was produced by accused (Bipul Mishra) containing screenshots of WhatsApp chat between Aditya Kumar Chaurasia (P.W. 7) and the victim (P.W.1) which also discloses that after Darjeeling camp in different dates i.e. 19 th , 21 st , 26 th and 29 th September, 2022, the victim was admitted in the hospital due to some injury sustained by her and was also chatting with the accused on Instagram. The conversation between them was of normal nature disclosing no complain about commission of rape with the victim. The learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the aforesaid evidence while arriving at conclusion of guilt of the appellant. It is further submitted that the occurrence as alleged has taken place at Darjeeling (West-Bengal), but the F.I.R. was instituted at Khelgaon, Ranchi. Therefore, the concerned trial court had no jurisdiction to try this case and the concerned investigating officer was also not competent to investigate the same. Hence appellant deserve to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal. 5. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted with learned counsel for the informant have vehemently controverted the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and also pressing the points raised in counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, it is submitted that due to threat and intimidation given to the victim by the appellant, there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. In such type of serious offences several factors are responsible for taking prompt legal recourse. The victim (P.W.1) has categorically proved that appellant in capacity of her Coach was acquainted with her since 2019-2020. The victim (P.W.1) has categorically proved that appellant in capacity of her Coach was acquainted with her since 2019-2020. They went to Darjeeling along with 09 other children to attend the International Training Camp where the appellant allured her in various ways for her better future career and committed rape upon her several times in between 5 th to 7 th September, 2022. The appellant has also prepared the video of the occurrence and threatened to make the same viral on social media. She was also threatened to continue the physical relation with the appellant for her registration for National Kick Boxing Championship. The victim has also narrated the aforesaid incident to her friend Aditya Kumar Chaurasia (P.W.7) and to her father (P.W.3) and her mother (P.W.2). The date of birth of the victim as per school mark-sheet (Ext-P-3) is shown as 30.04.2006, as such on the date of the occurrence she was a child below the age of 18 years. The victim was medically examined on 28.10.2023 nearly after one year of occurrence, so there is no chance of finding sexual assault although the medical report of the victim shows that 'hymen old torn' which indicates the possibility of sexual intercourse with her. So far as question regarding jurisdiction is concerned, it appears that offence of sexual assault had started at Dhanbad, prior to the occurrence of Darjeeling which shows that it was continuing offence. So far as, arguments on behalf of appellant about inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned it appears that the character of the victim and prestige of the family remains reluctant, therefore, delay has been caused in lodging the F.I.R. along with other variety of reasons which has been explained in F.I.R. itself. The learned trial court after considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence has convicted and sentenced him for very serious and heinous offence, therefore, appellant does not deserve bail during the pendency of this appeal. 6. We have gone through the records of the case along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant. Interlocutory application No. 4854 of 2025 has been filed for suspension of sentence. The Hon'ble Apex Court on suspension of sentence has observed as under :- (i) In Case of Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. We have gone through the records of the case along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant. Interlocutory application No. 4854 of 2025 has been filed for suspension of sentence. The Hon'ble Apex Court on suspension of sentence has observed as under :- (i) In Case of Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 123 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a Sentence can be suspended in appeal only if convict has fair chances of acquittal. (ii) In Rama Narang V/s Ramesh Narang 1995(2) SCC 513 Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately considered the scope and ambit of the power of Appellate Court envisaged in Section 389 of Cr.P.C. as under:- "Appellate Court has powers to suspend the execution of sentence. The most relevant factor for the exercise of power for suspending the sentence is the degree of probability of the appeal being finally allowed. Such degree of probability has to be determined on the basis of prima facie satisfaction. The other factors relevant for the enquiry would include ancillary matters such as the nature and gravity of the offence and the age and health of the accused. 7. It appears that the victim has leveled serious allegation against the appellant that being Coach of the victim girl aged about 16 years of Kick Boxing, the appellant was in visiting terms to home of the informant (father of the victim) and was treated like a brother of the victim. The appellant has taken undue advantage of the vulnerable situation of the victim as to mend her career for registration of the victim for participating in National Kick Boxing Championship and established physical relation with her thrice during training camp at Darjeeling from 01.09.2022 to 10.09.2022. It also appears that investigating officer received letter from school of victim on which her date of birth has been mentioned as 30.04.2006 (Ext-P-9) and Ext-P-3 is original marks statement of victim, wherein also her date of birth is mentioned as 30.04.2006. Thus, it appears that on the date of commission of offence the victim was below the age of 18 years. It appears that other witnesses of fact P.W.4 has stated that although initially in the hotel Daffodil on instruction of the appellant, all boys and girls stayed in room at ground floor and victim girl was living with the appellant in separate room. It appears that other witnesses of fact P.W.4 has stated that although initially in the hotel Daffodil on instruction of the appellant, all boys and girls stayed in room at ground floor and victim girl was living with the appellant in separate room. The same fact has been reiterated by P.W.6 also. The contention about the false implication is not sustainable in view of the aforesaid unimpeachable prosecution evidence. It appears that the defence has also produced a pen drive showing screenshots of WhatsApp chatting wherein the victim has also participated, but that is of no avail to disbelieve the prosecution story. The appellant is in custody since 04.11.2023 although he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 20 years along with fine. 8. In view of serious nature of offence committed by the appellant with 16 years’ tender girl and evidence available on record, we do not find it a fit case to grant the benefit of suspension of sentence during the pendency of this appeal to the appellant. 9. Accordingly I.A. No.4854 of 2025 stands rejected and disposed of.