JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Accused of rape and other offences punishable under Sections 376, 323 and 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in G.N. Case No. 1325 of 1982 in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh, Udit nagar, the Petitioner, who is said to be a student of the Engineering College at Rourkela, seeks his release on bail. The Petitioner and the co-accused Pradipta Kumar Naik had earlier moved this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 527 of 1982 for their release on bail. At the stage of hearing of that case, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners did not press the application in respect of the present Petitioner and accordingly the application was rejected in respect of the Petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel had no objection to the other Petitioner namely, Pradipta Kumar Naik, being released on bail. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, the application was allowed in respect or of the co-accused Pradipta Kumar. The Petitioner has again come to this Court u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mrs. A.K. Padhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has invited my attention to the contents of the first information report and the other materials gathered by the investigating agency and has submitted that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of rape - a non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for life - and in addition, in the recent floods at Banki in the district of Cuttack, the family members of the Petitioner have been affected and the Petitioner's assistance is absolutely necessary. Mr. Indrajit Ray, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that on the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has already been submitted and he has no objection to the release of the Petitioner on bail. 3. The Petitioner is accused of an offence of rape which undoubtedly, is a heinous offence and is punishable with imprisonment for life. Earlier, an application had been made on his behalf and was not pressed at the stage of hearing. As to the personal difficulties owing to heavy floods in the Banki are for which the assistance of the Petitioner is said to be necessary, there is no material in support of this contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. Earlier, an application had been made on his behalf and was not pressed at the stage of hearing. As to the personal difficulties owing to heavy floods in the Banki are for which the assistance of the Petitioner is said to be necessary, there is no material in support of this contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. The overriding considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offences; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; the history of the case as well as of its investigation; of tampering with witnesses and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot exhaustively set out. See Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 S.C. 179 . As observed by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. "Bail or jail?", at the pre-trial or post-conviction stage belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the hunch of the Bench, otherwise called judicial discretion. 5. Merely because the investigation has been completed and a charge-sheet has been placed the Petitioner is not to be released on ball. The submission of a charge-sheet would, on the other hand, indicate that on the basis of materials gathered in the course of investigation, the investigating agency has found a prima facie case against the Petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that he has no objection to the release of the Petitioner on bail and appearing as he does on behalf of the State, he may have made this submission on proper instructions. But the judicial discretion of a court in granting or refusing bail is not to be guided solely by the concession or objection raised by the State Counsel. The court is not to surrender its judgment to that of a counsel appearing for the State. The court should exercise its discretion judicially on a proper consideration of the materials against an accused person. 6. The court is not to surrender its judgment to that of a counsel appearing for the State. The court should exercise its discretion judicially on a proper consideration of the materials against an accused person. 6. Having perused the materials gathered by the investigating agency, it would be unreasonable to assume at this stage that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner has been guilty of commission of an offence of rape. The statements of the victim Sabitri Barik, a young married maid servant, the peon of the Women's College, which houses also the Evening College and the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Women's College who was immediately informed about the occurrence by the peon besides the facts found on the spot would indicate that after the Petitioner and his companion accused person forcibly asked the rickshaw puller carrying the victim lady to take the rickshaw to the Women's College, in broad day light at about 5 p.m. on July 7, 1982, while the victim lady was going to the market in the rickshaw, the Petitioner forcibly dragged the victim lady inside the room of the Principal, drove out the peon from inside the room by dealing pushes, asked the peon to lock the door from outside which he did, closed the door from inside and then forcibly committed rape on the victim lady on the table inside the Principal's room by spreading a towel being used by the Principal, thereon The statement of the victim lady would clearly show as to how she was forcibly taken inside the room by the Petitioner and ravished by him without her consent. At the time of this occurrence, the peon had seen the sexual assault through an opening of the window. Being threatened by the co-accused, the peon left the spot and reponed a bout the occurrence to the Secretary of the Managing Committee and then went and lodged the report with the Police authorities who immediately came to the scene of occurrence when the co-accused person had been trying to break open the lock of the door from outside and on seeing the police officials, he took to his heels and was apprehended. The door of the Principal's room was opened and the Petitioner and the victim lady were found inside it. The door of the Principal's room was opened and the Petitioner and the victim lady were found inside it. The peon has reported about the occurrence seen by him in the first information report. 7. Some wearing clothes of the Petitioner and the victim lady have been seized in the course of investigation. No doubt, no injuries had been found on the person of the Petitioner and the victim, but the absence of injuries on the person of the aggressor would not invariably rule out a case of rape. In a case of helpless resignation in the face of investable compulsion, non-resistance or passive giving in, when volitional faculty is crowded by fear at vitiated by duress, injuries may not be caused on the victim lady or the aggressor and it may also be kept in mind that in the instant case, a married lady has been the victim of sexual assault. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Vs. State of U.P. absence of injuries on the person of the victim may not be fatal to the prosecution in a case of rape. The truth of the prosecution case against the Petitioner is to be judged at the total. Sufficient to say that the prosecution case, as presented at this stage, would show that the Petitioner has taken law into his own hands and has committed a monstrous act of rape on a defenseless lady and the acts and conduct of the Petitioner would exhibit daredevilry. Cases of rape are reported to be rampant at Rourkela, the Steel City of this State. 8. Regard being had to the nature and gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence has allegedly been committed and the aforesaid facts it is not a fit case, in my view, to exercise judicial discretion in favour of the Petitioner and admit him to bail. 9. In the result, the application is rejected and the Miscellaneous Case stands dismissed. Before I close, I would like to make it clear that some observations have been made in the body of this order only for the purpose of disposing of the application for bail and such observations should not, in any manner, influence the mind of the committal court or the Court of Session. Before I close, I would like to make it clear that some observations have been made in the body of this order only for the purpose of disposing of the application for bail and such observations should not, in any manner, influence the mind of the committal court or the Court of Session. As a charge-sheet has been submitted, I would call upon the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate to expedite the commitment proceedings and if and after a commitment is made, the trial should commence within three months thereafter. Final Result : Dismissed