JUDGMENT : L.K. Mishra, J. - Both the bail applications arise out of the same case i.e. G.R. Case No. 381 of 2008 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole involving offence under Sections 366-A/376/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (herein-in-after called the I.P.C) and u/s 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and therefore, both the bail applications are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned Counsel for both sides on the question of bail. 2. The prosecution case is that the victim (name withheld), who is a minor girl aged about 15 years was approached by Petitioner Tirthabasi Panda on the plea that he had arranged a job for her in a company at a good salary. Later the Petitioner Lalita Bharati and her husband Dina Bharati took the Petitioner to Cuttack, where she was forced to do prostitution and was also raped by Tirthabasi. She has alleged that Tirthabasi used to rape her time and again and other accused persons sent her out side Cuttack for prostitution. One day getting an opportunity, she escaped and went to her relatives' house. Thereafter one of the accused Srikanta called her to Panikoili where the Petitioners tried to kidnapped her again, which effort did not succeed due to intervention of general pubic. She was taken to Panikoili Out-Post. Later she lodged an F.I.R. 3. The learned advocate for the Petitioners has submitted that the victim girl did not tell anything against the Petitioners or even that she was forced to do prostitution at the Panikoli Out-Post. He has further argued that her medical examination report did not reveal any sign of symptoms of recent sexual intercourse and there is also delay in lodging F.I.R. One of the grounds advanced by him is that the Petitioner Tirthabashi Panda is a sitting Sarpanch of Jabara Gram Panchayat and the other Petitioner a woman. On the aforesaid grounds he has prayed for bail. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has vehemently resisted the prayer. 4. Bail is discretionary relief. However, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and basing on well established principles. Detention of the accused during investigation or pending trial robs an individual of liberty. Liberty of an individual being sacrosanct should not be infringed lightly. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel has vehemently resisted the prayer. 4. Bail is discretionary relief. However, the discretion is to be exercised judiciously and basing on well established principles. Detention of the accused during investigation or pending trial robs an individual of liberty. Liberty of an individual being sacrosanct should not be infringed lightly. The categorization of offence into bailable and non-bailable categories in the Code of Criminal Procedure, (herein-after called "Code of Criminal Procedure") indicates in which cases bail may be claimed as a matter of right. Such types of cases are described as bailable. On the other hand granting of bail in non-bailable cases is a matter of discretion in the Court. Power u/s 437 Code of Criminal Procedure which is exercisable by a Magistrate, entitles the Court to release the accused on bail, if he finds it expedient to do so. The Code of Criminal Procedure vests power of bail in higher Courts like Sessions Judge or the High Court u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, which power is absolutely unfettered. In serious offences bail should not be granted as a matter of course but should be granted only after due care and consideration. The factors which should in the mind of the Court while granting bail are innumerable and cannot be definitely cataloged. However, the nature and gravity of offence, the chance or possibility of the accused tampering with the witnesses, if granted bail, the possibility of his absconding or repeating the offence and the interest of the society at large are some such considerations. 5. In the present case the victim had not gone to the Police Out-Post to lodge an F.I.R. She had been taken to the Out-post when she was freshly rescued from her tormentors. It is possible that because of fear or may be due to presence of general pubic, she hesitated to reveal anything at that time. Whatever the reason for her not disclosing such facts at that time, may come out during the trial. This is not the stage to believe or disbelieve or disbelieve the case basing on such omission. Likewise the delay in lodging F.I.R. may not be of much consequence since prestige and future of the girl was involved. Whatever the reason for her not disclosing such facts at that time, may come out during the trial. This is not the stage to believe or disbelieve or disbelieve the case basing on such omission. Likewise the delay in lodging F.I.R. may not be of much consequence since prestige and future of the girl was involved. Her medical examination did not reveal any sign on recent sexual intercourse which was not unexpected, having regard to the fact that she was examined more then one and half months after the last sexual abuse. 6. A perusal of the case diary reveals a horrible and gruesome affair. A sitting Sarpanch has drawn a nubile maiden to the net of prostitution on false pretext and subterfuge. The victim was confined, starved and was beaten black and blue and was subjected to repeated forcible rape to break her will. Ultimately she succumbed to the pressure and at last resignedly undertook the heinous job. To her credit, at the very first opportunity she managed to escape. 7. There is every likelihood that if the Petitioners are granted bail they would indulged in their nefarious activity in procuring innocent victims and pushing them into the profession of prostitution. There is also likelihood of their tampering with the evidence since the case diary reveals that the accused persons are members of an organized sex racket. Having regard to the nature and gravity of offence, the conduct of the accused persons and in view of the large interest of the society, I do not feel expedient to grant bail to the Petitioners at this stage. Accordingly their prayer for bail is rejected. The BLAPLs are dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed