JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - This is an application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Petitioner praying for grant of bail. It has been alleged that the Petitioner has committed offence under Sections 376/511, I.P.C. 2. As revealed from the case diary produced by the learned Counsel for the State, the prosecution alleged that on 11.05.2006 at, about 3 P.M. the victim-informant, who is a foreign lady, was sitting on the sea beach at Puri and reading a book. The accused all on a sudden came to the spot and attempted to rape her by force. Due to physical resistance of the victim and due to arrival of some of the witnesses hearing the shout of the victim, the accused was not successful in his attempts to commit rape. The Petitioner-accused was apprehended on 11.5.2006. 3. Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that even if the allegations are admitted, it would be revealed from the statements recorded during investigation that the case may at best be one u/s 354, I.P.C. and there is no, prima facie. case made out against the Petitioner with regard to commission of offence u/s 376/511, I.P.C. It was further contended that offence u/s 354, I.P.C. is triable by a Magistrate, First Class and is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to two years. Mr. Swain made an attempt to bring it to the notice of This Court that the statement made in the F.I.R. and the statement of the informant recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure are contradictory to each other and the statements of the victim as well as other witnesses are prevaricating and inconsistent. He further contended that since the essential ingredients of offence u/s 376/511, I.P.C. are not shown to have been, prima facie, made out, the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer for bail, submitted that a strong, prima facie, case of commission of offence under Sections 376/511, I.P.C. is made out from the F.I.R. itself and contradictions between the statements made in the F.I.R. and the statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure of the informant should not be taken note of at this stage. He further submitted that considering the gravity of the offence alleged, no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner, even though he has been taken to custody since 11.5.2006. 5. I have perused the F.I.R. and the statements of the informant and other witnesses recorded during investigation. There is material available in the statement of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in support of the allegation made by the victim. Some of the witnesses examined during investigation appear to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 6. The consistent view of the Supreme Court in case of application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure is that while dealing with an application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure though a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation with regard to the merit of the case is not required, but reasons are to be given by a Court for either granting bail or refusing the same when the prosecution allegation is with regard to commission of a serious offence. 7. Undoubtedly, the alleged offence under Sections 376/511, I.P.C. is not only a serious offence but also heinous in nature. A prima facie case of commission of the said offence against the Petitioner has been clearly made out from the statements of the witnesses, who have corroborated the statements of the informant. 8. Mr. Swain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner stressed on the fact that the Medical Officer on examining the victim has found no injuries on her body, some simple injuries were found by the Medical Officer examining the accused-Petitioner and according to him, this, prima facie, falsifies the allegation of the prosecution. 9. The Court is not required at this stage to weigh the evidence or treat the statements brought out during the investigation as admissible evidence and consider the merit of the case, it is well-settled that in the case of allegation of commission of offence which is a serious and heinous offence like rape or attempt to rape, if the materials show a prima facie case to have been made out against the accused, in ordinary course, bail should not be granted. 10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. 10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Kalyan Chandra Sarkar etc. Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Another, that the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that while considering a bail application, the Court must consider the nature of accusation, the severity of the punishment in case of conviction, the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. Long incarceration in itself, is not a ground to grant bail in case of a serious offence. Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes that whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under the said Code with imprisonment for life or causes such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment of life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment which may extend to imprisonment for life. 11. Keeping in view of the punishment prescribed for the main offence i.e., Section 376, the period of incarceration of the Petitioner cannot be considered to be a ground for granting him bail. Examining the facts of this case, in the touch stone of the ratio of the decision in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) and plethora of other decisions of the Supreme Court laying down the principles on which an application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure is to be governed, I am not inclined to allow this application for grant of bail. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Allowed