JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. Heard learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. representing the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for suspension of sentence of the appellant by enlarging him on bail during pending of the instant criminal appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2024 and order of sentence dated 30.09.2024 passed in S.T. No. 401 of 2016 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016 by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000 and a default sentence of S.I.for 6 months. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 3 years out of which he has already served custody for the period of 1 year 1 month and 24 days, which is also evident from Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, which is a report from the Superintendent of Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. 4. Further, it has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Court has come to a wrong finding, particularly with respect to the solemnization of marriage between the appellant and victim (P.W.2), even prima facie existence of marriage between them in order to record conviction under Section 498A of the IPC. It has further been pointed out that neither the Investigating Officer of the case nor any other police official has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to depose before the Trial Court during course of trial on the point of factum of marriage, which is generally the societal function and therefore, the very genesis of the charge leveled against the appellant has not been formally proved in the eyes of law. 5. It has further been argued that although the charges framed against the appellant are under Section 498(A), 494 and 315 of the IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but he has been acquitted of all the charges except for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 6. 5. It has further been argued that although the charges framed against the appellant are under Section 498(A), 494 and 315 of the IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act but he has been acquitted of all the charges except for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. 6. It has strongly been argued on behalf of the appellant that prosecution has failed to examine the parents of the victim in this case and only the victim herself, her sister and her aunt has been examined by the prosecution as P.W.2, P.W.1 and P.W.3 respectively and therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to ascertain even the prima facie solemnization of marriage of the parties. Therefore, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that let the order of sentence be suspended by enlarging the appellant on bail during pending of this appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. assisted by learned counsel for the Informant-Victim (P.W.2) has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that two separate criminal cases were instituted against the appellant, one for committing rape of the victim and another for the matrimonial dispute inter alia under Section 498A of the IPC and the appellant, in order to get favourable order in the case of rape, has solemnized marriage with the victim, in which case he has been convicted. Further, it has also been pointed out that all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of the prosecution but they did not controvert the fact that neither the Investigating Officer nor any other police official has been examined by the prosecution and further the parents of the victim have also not been examined. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits. 9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10. 8. Heard the parties, perused the record of the case including the trial court record, depositions of witnesses and other exhibits. 9. In view of the persuasive submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, it is found just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the appellant named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in connection with S.T. No. 401 of 2016 arising out of Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No. 232 of 2016. 11. I.A. No. 624 of 2025 is allowed.