JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. I.A. No. 10682 of 2024: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant no. 1, namely, Hariom Choudhari @ Hariom Choudhary, for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the instant appeal after suspending the impugned order of sentence dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2022 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the appellant no. 1 has been convicted to go rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 120(B); R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs.12,000 and in default of payment of fine R.I. for 15 months for the offence under section 366-A IPC and further R.I. for 14 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I for two years under Section 370(4) IPC. All the sentenced were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix 2. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the written petition of the informant Mostt. Sita Devi contain allegation that on 05.01.2022 at 6:00 Hrs. her daughter left her house for attending natural call but after some hours, she did not return. Thereafter, informant tried her best to trace her daughter but in vain. In the meantime, informant came to know from her neighbour girl namely, Sohwa Kumari that Mangeeta Devi, who is resident of Bihar has taken the daughter of informant aged about 13 years and that lady had also said Sohwa Kumari to go with her. Informant has reason to believe that Mangeeta Devi has kidnapped the daughter of informant. 3. On the written report of the informant, Jainagar PS Case No. 02/2022 was registered and Police after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against the accused persons Under Sections 366 (A), 370 and 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C. and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The learned trial court took cognizance of the offences and committed the case record to the Court of Session as case was being exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 4. The learned trial court took cognizance of the offences and committed the case record to the Court of Session as case was being exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 4. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses in Session Trial and the learned trial court after appreciation of evidence has found the charges levelled against the present applicant along with other accused persons proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the present applicant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 5. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred by the applicant/appellant with the prayer for the suspension of sentence during pendency of the instant appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant no.1 6. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant no.1 that on earlier occasion the appellant no.1 had moved before this Court by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10910 of 2023 for suspension of sentence which had been rejected vide order dated 08.01.2024. 7. It has been contended on behalf of appellant no. 1 that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case if the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C will be taken into consideration. 8. It has further been submitted by referring to the testimony of victim (P.W. 2), that the prosecution version has not been corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 2 even then the trial Court without appreciating the aforesaid fact has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Further contention has been raised by referring to the testimony of P.W. 5 (mother of the victim) that she has also not corroborated the prosecution version. Furthermore, the P.W 6 (Investigating Officer)has also not corroborated the prosecution version. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 has emphatically contended that the co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar; Puja Kumari @ Pooja Devi and; Ram Kumar have already been granted bail after suspending the sentence by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 508 of 2023; order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2023 and; order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2023, respectively, as such, prayer has been made that the present appellant no.1 may also be released on bail after suspension of sentence. Appeal (DB) No. 508 of 2023; order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2023 and; order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2023, respectively, as such, prayer has been made that the present appellant no.1 may also be released on bail after suspension of sentence. Submission of the learned counsel for the state: 11. While on the other hand, Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant no.1 for suspension of sentence and has submitted that earlier the similar prayer of the present applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal was rejected by this Court on merits after due consideration of the materials available on record but she has not disputed the fact that the co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar; Puja Kumari @ Pooja Devi and; Ram Kumar have been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Analysis 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Records and the material exhibits appended therewith. 13. It is evident from the record that earlier the similar prayer of the present applicant/appellant for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal was rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in I.A. No. 10910 of 2023 on merits after due consideration of the materials available on record but thereafter the co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar; Puja Kumari @ Pooja Devi and; Ram Kumar has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 14. This Court has taken into consideration the ground taken on behalf of the appellant no.1 regarding the sentence having been suspended with respect to the co-accused persons, namely, Rajendra Kumar; Puja Kumari @ Pooja Devi and; Ram Kumar by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 508 of 2023; order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2023 and; order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 508 of 2023; order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2023 and; order dated 14.10.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 672 of 2023, respectively, as such, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of the present appellant no.1 15. Therefore, this Court is of the view, the sentence is to be suspended, during pendency of the appeal. 16. Accordingly, the instant Interlocutory Application is allowed. 17. In view thereof, the appellant no.1, namely, Hariom Choudhari @ Hariom Choudhary, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in in Sessions Trial No. 73 of2022 arising out of Jainagar P.S. Case No. 2 of 2022. 18. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case of the parties on merit since the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.