JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner Shri. Motilan Sohshang represented by his sister Smti. Klidian Sohshang with a prayer for grant of bail. 2. Heard Mr. H. R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has submitted that an FIR was lodged by one Shri. Bernard Nongkseh on 04.01.2022 with the Officer-In-Charge Nongstoin Police Station alleging that his daughter aged about 20 years left the house of her aunt on 03.01.2022 at about 7:30 pm or so but on the way before reaching Upper Laitkseh village, one unknown male person forcefully covered her mouth and raped her there and after the act, the perpetrator fled away. The FIR was registered as Nongstoin P.S. Case No. 3(1) of 2022 under Section 376/323 IPC and investigation was launched. 3. The learned counsel has also submitted that in course of investigation the Investigating Officer (I/O) has recorded the statement of the alleged victim as well as other relevant witnesses including the statement of the accused/petitioner. The I/O after completion of the investigation then filed the charge sheet on 15.03.2022 coming to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 376 is found well established against the accused/petitioner and he was accordingly directed to stand on trial before the competent court. It may be mentioned that the accused/petitioner has since been arrested in connection with the case on 12.01.2022 and is still in custody till date. 4. The Trial Court on the basis of the charge sheet framed the charge under Section 376 IPC on 30.06.2022 against the accused/petitioner herein who pleaded not guilty and the matter is now fixed for recording of evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused/petitioner is a local taxi driver by occupation, driving his own taxi and out of his earnings, he is managing his day-to-day life as well as that of his family, being a married person with two minor children who are totally dependent on him and as such his prolonged incarceration in custody has caused great hardship to him and his family. 6. 6. Again, the learned counsel has submitted that several bail applications were preferred before the concerned court but were rejected and the last bail application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29.09.2022 on the ground that the application of the petitioner can be decided after the evidence of the victim is recorded. 7. So far, only the evidence of the complainant has been recorded but the evidence of the alleged victim could not be recorded on the ground that she has failed to appear before the Court on all the dates fixed for her evidence. Therefore, the fact that the trial will carry on for a long time would further prejudice the accused/petitioner and would stifle his opportunity to prepare his defence, the prayer for grant of bail is therefore made before this Court. 8. If released on bail, the accused/petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and will also give an undertaking or execute any bail bond to bind himself to the conditions so imposed. 9. Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Addl. PP appearing on behalf of the State respondent has submitted that the records of the Trial Court as called for is produced before this Court today and that this Court may perused the contents thereof and pass necessary orders. 10. The submission of the learned counsels of the rival parties have been duly considered by this Court and the case record has also been perused. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the petitioner was called upon to implead the complainant in these proceedings and accordingly notice was issued, however though the same was duly affected confirmed by an affidavit-of- service filed by the petitioner, the complainant failed to appear before this Court. Accordingly, this matter shall proceed ex-parte against the complainant. 11. On the basis of what have been submitted before this Court, what is understood is that the case against the accused/petitioner is at the evidence stage and recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is going on. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far out of eight witnesses, only one witness has been examined on 11.07.2022. 12. However, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far out of eight witnesses, only one witness has been examined on 11.07.2022. 12. It is a fact that the charge against the accused/petitioner is serious in nature and if convicted may invite a punishment of imprisonment of not less than 10 years which may extend to imprisonment for life. However as stated time and again, the Trial Court would have to appreciate the evidence and the materials on record to come to any finding in this regard, which may also lead to the exoneration of the accused. At this stage, it is too early for any conclusion to be arrived at. 13. Pre-trial custodial detention more often than not is not the intention of the court since the accused has to be allowed all possible opportunity to prepare his defence in an atmosphere where his faculties are not hindered. The purpose for detention during trial is only to ensure that the accused shall not tamper with the evidence or witnesses or to abscond if enlarged on bail. However, even in this connection there are full proof measures to compel the accused to cooperate with the trial and this could be in the form of imposition of conditions, violation of which would automatically invite cancellation of bail. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Sanjay Chandra v. CBI' reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 at para 21, 22 and 23 has observed that: - '21. In bail application, 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 is 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. 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 unconvicted 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. 23. 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. 15. Under the facts and circumstances indicated above and relying on the authority cited, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/petitioner may be enlarged on bail to allow him to defend his case before the Trial Court. 16. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the accused/petitioner is directed to be released on bail, if not required in any other case on the following conditions: i. That he shall not abscond or threaten the witnesses, particularly the alleged victim; ii. That he shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; iii. That he shall not to leave the jurisdiction of India without prior permission of the court; and iv. That he shall furnished a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) only with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned court. 17. Registry is directed to send back the case record forthwith. 18. Petition disposed of. No costs.