Order : I.A. No. 993 of 2025 1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 430 (1) of B.N.S.S, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 21.08.2024 passed by the learned A.J.C-XX, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.201 of 2021 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1695 of 2021, by which the appellant has been sentenced and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) of the I.P.C and in default of payment of fine, further S.I. for six (06) months. 2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that it is the case where no ingredient of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and the aforesaid aspect has also been substantiated by the testimony of the victim who has been examined as PW 1. 3. As has been deposed by the PW-1 herself that the FIR has been instituted after a lapse of four years, therefore, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. 4. While on the other hand, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 5. It has been contended that the PW-1 victim has fully supported the prosecution version and since the judgment of conviction has been passed and as such it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony available in the L.C.R. and other documents available on record. 7. This Court, in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, has gone through the testimony of PW 1 and found there from that she had established physical relationship for four years on the pretext of marriage. 8. Therefore, based upon the testimony of PW1, this Court is of the view that the appellant is able to make a case fit for suspension of sentence, during pendency of appeal. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant is allowed. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 993 of 2025, is hereby allowed. 11. 8. Therefore, based upon the testimony of PW1, this Court is of the view that the appellant is able to make a case fit for suspension of sentence, during pendency of appeal. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for suspension of sentence of the appellant is allowed. 10. Accordingly, I.A. No. 993 of 2025, is hereby allowed. 11. In consequence thereof, the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of the instant appeal on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of leaned A.J.C.-XX, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No.201 of 2021 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 54 of 2020 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1695 of 2021. 12. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above will not prejudice the case on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.