JUDGMENT : I.A. No.2175 of 2025 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of appellant under Section 430(1) and (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for suspension of sentence dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Ranchi in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002(P), arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.05 of 2002 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 3(5) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for 8 years along with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 8 months. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case where, without following the statutory command as provided under Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, the convicted is based. 3. It has been contended that the aforesaid provisions are exception to Section 25 of the Evidence Act and as such, the same was to be followed mandatorily but skipping the same, the learned trial court believing upon the version of the prosecution that the query was made to the appellant by recording his satisfaction at the time of recording the confession. 4. It has been contended that the law is well-settled that if any provision is made in any of the statutory command, the same is to be followed. The same is also very relevant in the matter where the issue of personal liberty is concerned. 5. It has further been contended that the appellant was all along on bail and in the meanwhile, there was no reference of any overt act said to be committed said to attract the said Act as defined under the Section 15 of the U.A.P. Act, 1967. It has also been submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent and as such, it is a fit case where the sentence may be suspended. 6. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 7. It has been contended that the requirement as provided under Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the POTA Act, 2002 has been followed as it would be evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer. 8. 6. While, on the other hand, Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. 7. It has been contended that the requirement as provided under Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the POTA Act, 2002 has been followed as it would be evident from the testimony of Investigating Officer. 8. This Court has 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 trial court record. 9. We have also gone through the provision as contained under Sections 32(1) and 32(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002. The aforesaid statutory provision provides that the person from whom a confession has been recorded under sub-section (1), shall be produced before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate along with the original statement of confession, written or recorded on mechanical or electronic device within forty-eight hours. 10. We, in order to consider the aforesaid applicability of the aforesaid provision in the present case has found that no such endeavour has been taken by the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid fact has also not been disputed by learned State counsel. 11. We have also gone through the order passing sentence dated25.06.2024 in order to assess the argument that the argument made on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was all along on bail but there is no reference of any criminal antecedent said to be committed and he has been directed to be surrendered on the ground of the conviction vide impugned judgment dated 25.06.2024. 12. This Court, considering the aforesaid fact, is of the view that it is a case where the sentence is being suspended. 13. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.2175 of 2025 stands allowed. 14. 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.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Commissioner-cum- Special Judge, Ranchi in connection with Special Case No.25 of 2002(P), arising out of Palkot P.S. Case No.05 of 2002. 15. 15. It is made clear that any observation made herein will not prejudice the issue on merit as the appeal is lying pending for its consideration.