JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. Soura Ch. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chita Ranjan Swain, learned counsel for the State. 2. This is an application under section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 in connection with T.R. Case No. 2013 of 2017 arising out of Khurda P.S. Case No. 198 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar for alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 376(2)(f)(n)/376-D/312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The petitioner moved an application for bail before BLAPL No. 5003 of 2017 the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Khurda which was rejected on 27.06.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.05.2017 and in the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted under sections 376(2)(f)(n)/376-D/312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 67-A of the Information Technology Act. The incident in question took place for the first time in the year 2014 but the first information report was lodged only on 10.05.2017. In the first information report, the victim has stated that one 'Babula' along with others committed rape on her at different point of time and in the 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements, she has stated that one 'Babuli' committed rape on her. It is contended that no T.I. parade report was conducted in respect of the petitioner. The parents of the victim namely Rabindra Muduli and Pramila Muduli introduced the full name of the petitioner in their statements for the first time which they came to know afterwards. It is further contended that since the victim was not aware about the full name of the petitioner and stated that it is one Babula/Babuli who committed rape on her, therefore, the statements of the parents giving the full name of the petitioner along with his alias name as 'Babuna' is very difficult to be accepted. He further submitted that in the meantime, the trial has already commenced and the victim has examined as P.W.1 and the chief examination is already over since 06.01.2018 but she is yet to be cross-examined. He further submitted that in the meantime, the trial has already commenced and the victim has examined as P.W.1 and the chief examination is already over since 06.01.2018 but she is yet to be cross-examined. Placing the evidence of the victim who stated that she knew all the accused persons including Babula and accused Babula committed rape on her, it is argued that the victim has not identified the petitioner as 'Babula' in Court and therefore, it cannot be said that the identity of the petitioner as the culprit has been established. It is further contended that since the chief examination of the victim is already over and at this stage, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or absconding of the petitioner, therefore, the bail application may be favourably considered. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the occurrence in question started in the year 2014 when the victim was sixteen years of age. Not only the victim was subjected to gang rape but the commission of rape was videographed for which the victim was exploited on the basis of such recording several times and the victim became pregnant due to gang rape which was terminated. It is contended that the manner in which the crime has been committed repeatedly by blackmailing the victim, the petitioner does not deserve to be released on bail. It is further contended that the victim has not only given the nick name of the petitioner right from the stage of lodging of the F.I.R. but also in Court while giving evidence during trial and she stated that she knew the petitioner. It is contended that since the victim has not been cross-examined as yet, there is every possibility of tampering with her evidence and in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of destroying her marital life. It is contended that in view of the sentence provided for the offences and the materials available on record in support of the evidence of the victim, it would not be proper to release him on bail. 6. It is contended that in view of the sentence provided for the offences and the materials available on record in support of the evidence of the victim, it would not be proper to release him on bail. 6. On hearing of the learned counsels for both the parties, though it appears that there is delay in lodging the first information report but in a case of this nature and the in the facts and circumstances of the case whether the explanation offered by the victim for delay would be acceptable or not is a matter which is to be decided by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage. It is correct that the victim has stated about the alias name of the petitioner as Babuli/Babula but her parents have stated about the alias name as well as the full name of the petitioner. The victim has implicated specific role against the petitioner and also stated that she knew the accused persons including Babula. The learned trial Court should have asked the victim to identify Babula in the dock and the identification aspect should have been mentioned in the evidence. However the victim is to be cross-examined and the trial Court is at liberty to clarify this aspect by giving an opportunity to the victim to identify Babula in the dock in the interest of justice and fair play and to prevent any ambiguity. It is pertinent to note that at present only one accused i.e. the petitioner is facing trial, out of the four accused persons charge sheeted and other co-accused persons are absconding. Therefore, it cannot be said that giving an opportunity to the victim to identify whether the petitioner is that 'Babula' which she has mentioned in her evidence, would cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Even though the victim was examined in chief on 6th January 2018 but at the time of cross-examination, the defence counsel was absent and on the request of the petitioner, the Court waited till 3.00 p.m. but the defence counsel did not turn up for cross-examination and accordingly, it has been mentioned by the learned trial Court that the cross-examined is 'nil'. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, on the basis of recall petition filed by the petitioner, the victim has been recalled for cross-examination but the cost imposed by the learned trial Court while allowing 311 Cr.P.C. petition has not yet been deposited. 7. In view of the forgoing discussions, the age of the victim at the time of occurrence, the manner in which the crime was committed repeatedly by exploiting and blackmailing the victim, the nature and gravity of the accusation, the punishment prescribed for the offences, the evidence available on record to substantiate such Sukanta accusation and the likelihood of tampering with the evidence of the witnesses, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed. 9. The learned trial Court shall do well to expedite the trial particularly keeping in view the provision under section 35 of POCSO Act, 2012. If the victim appears for cross-examination, the Court shall keep in mind the observation made above and ascertain from the victim about the identity of 'Babula' whom she has mentioned in her evidence.