ORDER

This is an application, made under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Rajballav Prasad @ Rajballav Pd. Yadav @ Rajballabh Yadav, in connection with Mahila Police Station Case No. 15 of 2016, under Sections 376, 420/34, 366-A, 370, 370-A, 212, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum Special Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

2. Let me begin from the beginning. The accused-petitioner had applied for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which gave rise to Cr. Misc. No.29753 of 2016. However, the said application was dismissed on withdrawn by order, dated 27.07.2016. There was, admittedly, no decision on the merit of the bail application. There is, therefore, no legal impediment in proceeding with the present bail application. This apart, to a pointed query made by this Court, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, has clearly submitted that the State had no objection to the consideration of bail of the accused-petitioner by this Court. This application was, accordingly, taken up for orders.

3. During the pendency of the present bail application, an Interlocutory Application being I.A. No.1671 of 2016 was filed seeking provisional bail on the ground of death of the father of the petitioner, and that prayer was allowed by order, dated 20.08.2016. In terms of the direction given for provisional bail, the petitioner has surrendered and, accordingly, been taken into custody by the learned trial Court.

4. Perused the above application and materials on record.

5. Heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State.

6. Before entering into the discussion as to whether the accused-petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail, some aspects of the rudimentary principles of law governing bail need to be pointed out.

7. While considering an application for bail, the Court shall not enter into the merits of the case, but must, briefly, assign reasons for the order which, it may pass. In other words, while granting bail, though a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of a given case are not to be undertaken, the Court owes a duty to assign reasons for prima facie concluding as to why bail was being granted. (See: Puran vs. Rambilas reported in MANU/SC/0326/2001: (2001) 6 SCC 338). See also Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and anr. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009)2 SCC 281, & Niranjan Singh vs. Prabhakar.

8. From the judicial pronouncements, what surfaces is that a court, while granting or refusing bail, must assign the reasons for its decision. The reasons assigned, however, must not be an elaborate discussion of the materials collected so that the accused is not prejudiced and his case must not appear to have been prejudged. There is, therefore, a need, on the part of the court, to maintain a balance between the need to assign reasons for refusing or granting bail, on the one hand, and the caution to be applied, on the other, to ensure that the assignment of reasons should not be so elaborate that the case of the accused appears to have been prejudged. [See: Jayanta Kumar Ghosh and Anr. vs. State of Assam and others reported in (2010) 6 GLR 727].

9. The other aspect of law, while considering application for bail is that even when charge-sheet is submitted against an accused, he does not lose his right to be presumed innocent by the Court until the time he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence, thus, runs in favour of even such a person, who may be accused of a heinous crime. The gravity of an offence, allegedly com