JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has prayed that he may be enlarged on bail in criminal case FIR No. 271 dated 23.9.2001 under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station, Sadar, Shimla. He was arrested on 25.9.2001 and is presently lodged in judicial lock-up. He had earlier filed bail application before the Sessions Judge, Shimla on 26.9.2001, which has been rejected by order dated 3.10.2001. 2. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. 3. In his order the Sessions Judge, Shimla has quoted in extenso the averments made by the applicant in his bail application filed before him and also referred to the evidence collected by the police to come to the conclusion that there is a prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. By taking into account the broad features of the case and the background of the incident, the Sessions Judge has refused to grant bail and dismissed the application. 4. Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1360, the learned Counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as he is not required by the police and there is no likelihood of his absconding as he has roots in the community being permanent resident of Haryana where he has landed property and being a married man with two unmarried daughters. Above all, he is a serving officer in the Indian Army with clean record. 5. Above all, he is a serving officer in the Indian Army with clean record. 5. No doubt in the judgment of Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (supra) in the context of unnecessarily prolonged detention in prison of the under trials, the learned Judges have observed that, "if the Court is satisfied, after taking into account, on the basis of information placed before it, that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond it can safely release the accused on his personal bond/ The considerations for determining whether the accused has his roots in the community are also given in the judgment, but for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the investigation or trial is pending, there are other relevant considerations as laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts in various judgments. These considerations can be summed up as follows: 1. The enormity of the charge or nature of the accusation; 2. The severity of punishment which a conviction would entail; 3. Nature of evidence in support of accusation; 4. The danger of applicants absconding if he is released on bail; 5. The danger of witnesses for the prosecution being tampered with; 6. The protracted nature of the trial; 7. The period of detention of the accused; 8. Character, means and standing of the applicant; 9. Previous conduct and behaviour of the accused in the court; 10. Health, age and sex of the accused; 11. Opportunity to the accused for preparation of defence and access to counsel; and 12. Danger of repetition of crime. 6. The above said list of the considerations/guidelines is not exhaustive one and there may be other considerations as well which may emerge from the facts and circumstances on record of each case. 7. Coming to the case in hand, this Court is in agreement with the Sessions Judge that from the evidence collected by the Police, more specifically the statements of the prosecutrix and L/Havaldar Mohinder Singh, who accompanied her to the residence of the applicant on the day of occurrence and the medical evidence prima-facie case is made out against the applicant for ravishing the prosecutrix on 23.9.2001. From the averments made in his bail application before the Sessions Judge which are enumerated by him in his order, it is the case of the applicant that at the relevant time he was posted as Administrative Commandant at the station headquarters at Shimla. He was also in control of Military Control Office in Railway Station, Shimla, which is manned by a Havaldar of the Army or a personnel of the equivalent rank established with the purpose to render needful assistance to the army personnel including the personnel of Indian Air Force and Navy and other wings of the Indian Army and their family members who happen to visit Shimla regarding their stay or work. The applicant has also admitted that the prosecutrix was brought to his residence, i.e., House No. 3, Longwood, Shimla by L/Havaldar Mohinder Singh who was on duty in Military Control Office in Railway Station, Shimla, on the day of occurrence to talk to him directly for finding a job for her and arranging for her stay at Shimla being the daughter of an Air Force Officer in Mumbai. For knowing that what happened in the closed door between the applicant and the prosecutrix, the statement of the prosecutrix read with the report of her medical, examination and the statement of L/Havaldar Mohinder Singh are relevant and if taken on their face value, make out a prima-facie case under Section 376(2)(b) IPC which is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may not be less than 10 years, but it may be for life and shall also be liable to fine. 8. Therefore, looking to the nature of accusation, severity of punishment which conviction would entail, the nature of evidence collected by the police in support of the accusation, the applicant is not entitled to bail. So far consideration of danger of applicants absconding is concerned, it may not be there, though the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the possibility of his leaving the country along with his family for abroad to avoid the trial of this case cannot be ruled out. But the danger of witnesses of the prosecution being tampered with does exist looking to his financial as well as social and economic status. Above all, if the accused involved in the heinous crime like murder, dacoity etc. etc. But the danger of witnesses of the prosecution being tampered with does exist looking to his financial as well as social and economic status. Above all, if the accused involved in the heinous crime like murder, dacoity etc. etc. are enlarged on bail despite the prima-facie case against them, the collective interest of the community will also suffer and the victims and their relations as well as public at large may lose faith in the criminal justice system. 9. In this regard, the observations of the Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 684, are relevant. These are : "......No doubt liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by Court, nonetheless when a person is accused of a serious offence like murder and his successive bail applications are rejected on merit there being prima facie material, the prosecution is entitled to place correct facts before the Court. Liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution” 10. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Surinder Singh v. State of HP, HLJ 2000 (HP) 756, cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant being in the context of the facts of that case has no application to the present case. 11. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this bail application and it is rejected. Be it stated that the observations made hereinabove are strictly for the purpose of disposal of this application and nothing therein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits and de-merits of the case of the prosecution. Application dismissed. -