1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue notice to the respondent-State and Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR accepts notice and waives service of notice for respondent State.

3. Heard.

4. Leave granted.

5. The appellant who was arrayed as an accused in FIR No. 10 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter as 'POCSO Act') has been visited with maximum punishment of 10 years and fine for the respective offences. He has been in custody for about five years.

6. The gist of the prosecution case is that the father of the victim lodged a complaint alleging that on 06.01.2022 his daughter had gone to school and did not return and even after search in the neighbourhood, she could not be traced and after obtaining information from her friends it was learnt that she was in the company of the appellant and they were apprehended from the residence of the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution that appellant had forcefully taken the victim girl, who is less than 18 years of age and against her will had sexual intercourse.

7. As noticed herein above, after full fledged trial, the appellant has been convicted for the said offences taking note of her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is under challenge before the jurisdictional High Court. The chances of appeal being disposed of in the near future being bleak and the statement of the victim partially being inconsistent when compared with her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. would persuade us to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant and negate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent who has been opposing the relief who vehemently contending this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence when after trial and on evaluation of evidence, appellant has been convicted and we are not persuaded by the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent since prima facie, the deposition of the victim when compared with her statement recorded under Section 164 would indicate inconsistency at large.

8. As such, we are of the view that the sentence against the appellant deserves to be suspended particularly in the backdrop of he having been in custody for more than 5 years and the sentence imposed on him being 10 years namely half of the sentence having been already completed.

9. These reasons cumulatively persuade us to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Court may deem fit to impose.

11. It is needless to state that the observations made herein above is limited only for the purpose of consideration of the prayer for grant of bail and the appellate Court shall, without being influenced by the observations made herein above, evaluate the evidence and independently consider the appeal on its own merits.

12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.