JUDGMENT This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode. 1. I have heard Mr. Devasish Panda, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. L. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Satyabrata Senapati, learned counsel for the Respondent No 2 - victim. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Ramesh Chandra Sahu under Section 14-A of SC & ST (POA) Act read with Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge -cum-Special Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna in C.T. Case No.35 of 2020 corresponding to M. Rampur P.S. Case No.195 of 2020 registered for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)(s)/3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, refusing to release the appellant on bail. 3. The allegations in brief against the appellant is that petitioner had applied for a house under the PMAY Scheme before the accused who is the local Sarpanch and he had collected her phone number and had been demanding sexual favours from the victim, which she had been ignoring. On 18.10.2020 in the morning, he entered her house and finding her alone, misbehaved with her and threw her on the cot and tried to rape her by removing her pant. But she kicked him and escaped and when she questioned him about his conduct, he abused her and threatened to kill her by saying that he belongs to the ruling party. 4. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in judicial custody since 19.11.2020 and in the meanwhile investigation has been completed for which no useful purpose will be served by detaining the appellant in custody any further. He has also submitted that charge sheet has been against him mechanically for commission of offences punishable under Sections 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act even though a prima facie case under Section 376/511 IPC is not made out against him . He further submits that the victim has made false allegations against due to political rivalry and when sent to the DHH, Bhawanipatna for her medical examination and opinion, she refused to be examined. He further submits that the victim has made false allegations against due to political rivalry and when sent to the DHH, Bhawanipatna for her medical examination and opinion, she refused to be examined. He has relied on the decisions in Hari Mohapatra vs. State : 1996 ( 10) OCR 533: 1996 (1) OLR 488 and Tarkeshwar Sahu vs. State of Bihar : (2006) 8 SCC 560 in support of his prayer for bail. 5. Mr. Senapati, learned counsel for the informant has objected to grant of bail stating that the appellant being a rowdy and influential person is likely to commit similar offence, abscond, tamper with of the prosecution evidence and threaten the victim and her family members. He has filed a written note of submission, wherein, it has been mentioned that during course of investigation, the police has seized the mobile phone of the accused and victim and also seized one Moser bear Micro SD 2 GB memory card in which the conversation of both the parties has been recorded by Nigam Sahu on his mobile as the mobile of the victim did not have such facility. After examination of said voice recording by Sri. G.N.Manipatra OPS-1 (SB), Addl. SP IUCAW, Kalahandi, opined that it is a true case. The verification report, supports the allegation that the appellant had called up the victim over telephone and was compelling her to keep sexual relation with him. There are sufficient materials of sexual assault, outraging of modesty against the appellant. 6. Mr. Samantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State has placed the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and opposed the prayer for bail stating that the appellant has misused his position as Sarpanch and instead of helping the victim who belongs to the weaker section to avail various benefits for which she is eligible has tried to exploit her and humiliate her. He has also submitted that the victim has been medically examined and no external injuries and her refusal for internal examination is natural as has stated that she escaped the clutches of the accused before he could rape her. 7. He has also submitted that the victim has been medically examined and no external injuries and her refusal for internal examination is natural as has stated that she escaped the clutches of the accused before he could rape her. 7. In the case of Hari Mohapatra (supra), while dealing with an application for quashing of the criminal proceedings which were pending with respect to offences under Section - 376/ 511 I.P.C., the offences under Section 448/114/354/506/34 I.P.C having already been compounded , quashed the proceedings as six years had elapsed since the incident and the alleged victim was no longer willing to depose about the incident. While doing so, this Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Mohd. Yaqub : AIR 1980 SC 1111 referred to the words of Chinappa Redy J in his concurring view :- "..In order to constitute ' as attempt' first there must be an intention to commit the particular offence and, second , some act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards commission of the offence and third , such act must be proximate to the intended result .The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention.' In the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section - 366 and 354 I.P.C but set aside his conviction under Section -376 / 511 I.P.C holding that :- ...." The appellant had neither undressed himself nor even asked the prosecutrix to undress so there is no question of penetration. In the absence of any attempt to penetrate, the conviction under Section - 376/511 IPC is wholly illegal and unsustainable'. 8. The decision in Tarkeshwar sahu (supra) has been distinguished in the case of Chaitu Lal vs. State Of Uttarakhand : (2019 ) 20 SCC 272 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held : ... 11. The counsel on behalf of the accused appellant placed reliance upon the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560 to claim the benefit of acquittal for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC. 11. The counsel on behalf of the accused appellant placed reliance upon the case of Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), (2006) 8 SCC 560 to claim the benefit of acquittal for offence under Section 511 read with Section 376 of IPC. But, on careful perusal of the aforesaid decision in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the present case, both the cases are distinguishable as in the case cited above, it is clearly noted that the accused failed at the stage of preparation of commission of the offence itself. Whereas, in the present case before us the distinguishing fact is the action of the accused appellant in forcibly entering the house of the complainant victim in a drunken state and using criminal force to lift her petticoat despite her repeated resistance.' 9. I have gone through the case diary and the statement of the victim recorded under Section - 164 Crl.P.C. The victim has been medically examined and the police has seized the CDR records of the appellant, victim and her friend as well as the SD memory card in which the conversation of the appellant with the victim has been recorded. Non detection of any physical injury on her does not falsify her allegations as she has not claimed anywhere that she had sustained any injury and she has stated that she kicked the accused and escaped his clutches before he could rape her. 10. It would be apt to refer to a few decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI: (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 11. In the case of in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (supra) , the Hon'ble Court has held as follows : 'The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.....' 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra ( supra) has inter alia held : '21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 40.The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41.This Court in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. vs. State AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering petition for grant of bail in non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 42.Both of them relate to ensure of the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing. 43.When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet...' 13. In the present case, chargesheet dated 16.01.2021 has been filed against the appellant for commission of offences under section - 341/354-A/354-B/376/511 of the I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/ 3(2)(v)/3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act . When none of these offences are punishable with imprisonment for life or death and investigation has been completed, denying bail to the accused even if a prima facie case is made out against him, would amount to pre-trial punishment. That apart the petitioner has remained in custody for more than is a permanent resident of Kalahandi and there is no apprehension of his absconding if released on bail. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the submissions of the counsels, nature of accusations against the petitioner, the punishment prescribed for the offences the petitioner is alleged to have committed, and the period of his detention in judicial custody, I am inclined to set aside the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Bhawanipatna and release the appellant on bail. The apprehension of the informant- victim that the appellant is likely to threaten the victim and her relations and other witnesses and commit similar offence and abscond can be taken care of, by imposing suitable conditions. 15. The apprehension of the informant- victim that the appellant is likely to threaten the victim and her relations and other witnesses and commit similar offence and abscond can be taken care of, by imposing suitable conditions. 15. Let the appellant- Ramesh Chandra Sahu be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Court below in seisin over the matter, including the following conditions : 1. He will not indulge in any criminal activity while on bail. 2. He will not try to contact the victim in person or over mobile phone. 3. He will not try to directly or indirectly influence prosecution witnesses while on bail. 4. He will remain present in the trial court on each date the case is fixed for trial. 5. He will report before the M. Rampur Police Station once every alternate Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. for a period of one year subject to restrictions imposed by the State Government/ District Administration regarding lockdown/ shutdown for containing the Covid-19 pandemic. Violation of any condition will entail in cancellation of bail. 16. Liberty is granted to the State as well as the Respondent No. 2 -victim to file appropriate application for modification/recalling of this order or for cancellation of bail if the appellant violates any of the conditions imposed in this order or by the learned Court below. 17. It is made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation in this order while conducting the trial . 18. The CRLA is accordingly disposed of. 19. As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the petitioner may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court's Notice No.4798 dated 15th April. 2021.