JUDGMENT : I.A. No.12975 of 2024 1 . The instant Appeal has been listed for passing an appropriate order on the instant interlocutory application filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 23 of 2025 in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No.47 of 2022, arising out of Chaibasa, Muffasil P.S. Case No.138 of 2022 against the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2024 and order of sentence dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge 1-cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 323, 366-A, 354-B, 376(D), 506 of IPC and also under Section 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 323 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years, for the offence punishable under Section 366A of the IPC and further directed to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine further directed to undergo S.I. for 5 months. Appellant has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years, for committing the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Further, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, which would mean imprisonment for remainder of his natural life for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine further directed to undergo one year additional R.I. No sentence has been passed under Section 354-B, 376-D of IPC and under Section 8 of POCSO Act. 2 . It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, reason being that in the testimony of the victim who has been examined as PW-1 has contradiction in all three stages i.e. First Information Report, one version, Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. another version and in the testimony, the third version has been uttered by the victim. Therefore, the testimony of the victim cannot be said to be the trustworthy. Therefore, the testimony of the victim cannot be said to be the trustworthy. Further, the testimony has also not been corroborated from all other witnesses particularly the doctor who has been examined as PW-8 who has deposed having not found any sign of injury while the victim in her deposition has deposed that she has been injured in course of commission of the rape. Further submission has been made that the motive behind the false implication is also there which would be evident from the testimony of PW-7 to whom the marriage of the victim was to be solemnized but the reason has been shown that since she has been caught red handed in the bush along with one Deven Kachhap by the appellant and due to that her marriage with PW-7 which was already fixed has also been broken and that is the reason for the implication of the appellant by instituting the F.I.R. 3 . Submission has also been made that co-convict, namely, Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu has been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.637 of 2024 and co-convict, namely, Anuj Pratap Tiu has also been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1278 of 2024. 4 . It is further contended that the case of the co-convicts namely, Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu and Anuj Pratap Tiu, who were directed to be released on bail, are identical to that of present appellant. Therefore, it is a case where the sentence is fit to be suspended. 5 . While on the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted by referring to the testimony of the witnesses and by making submission that if the testimony of all the witnesses will be taken together then it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the appellant, but has not controverted the fact that the case of the co-convicts namely, Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu and Anuj Pratap Tiu, who were directed to be released on bail, are identical to that of present appellant. 6 . 6 . We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment as also the testimony of the witnesses as available in the Lower Court Record and the other exhibits. 7 . This Court in order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties particularly the submission which has been advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding the trustworthiness of the testimony of the victim, we have gone through the testimony of PW-1, F.I.R. which was instituted by the victim herself and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In all these stages, the contradiction is there. The aforesaid facts have also been admitted by learned Public Prosecutor. 8 . The doctor has also given different opinion regarding the injuries said to be sustained to the victim in course of occurrence. The doctor has given specific opinion that no injury has been found and even no sign of rape etc. has been reported to be there. 9 . We have also considered the testimony of PW-7 to whom the marriage of the victim was scheduled to be solemnized but due to surfacing of the love affairs in between the victim and the PW-7, the marriage has broken. 10 . This Court taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter as also the co-convict, namely, Ramchandra Tiu @ Ram Chandra Tiu who has been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.637 of 2024 and also the co-convict namely, Anuj Pratap Tiu who has been allowed to be released on bail vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1278 of 2024, is of the view that this appellant also deserves to be released on bail. 11 . This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered. 12 . Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed. 13 . Appeal (DB) No. 1278 of 2024, is of the view that this appellant also deserves to be released on bail. 11 . This Court is therefore of the view that it is a fit case where the impugned order needs to be interfered. 12 . Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application stands allowed. 13 . In consequence thereof, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1-cum- Special Judge (POCSO) Act, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa in connection with Spl. POCSO Case No.47 of 2022, arising out of Chaibasa, Muffasil P.S. Case No.138 of 2022. 14 . Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.12975 of 2024 stands disposed of. 15 . It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove will not prejudice the case on merit, since, the criminal appeal is pending before this Court for its consideration.