At the bail stage, a detailed analysis of evidence is not necessary, and the decision to grant bail involves balancing various factors, including the nature of the offense, severity of punishment, and prima facie view of the accused's involvement.

ORDER

1. I have heard Mr. Amlan Mohanty on behalf of Mr.S.R.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.R.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner-Ramesh Khora in connection with Jeypore Sadar P.S. Case No.164 of 2019 corresponding to T.R. Case No.71 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge, Jeypore where chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363/376 (2) (n)/376 (3)/294/506/342 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POSCO Act.

3. The petitioner had moved an application for bail before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jeypore which was rejected on 11.12.2019.

4. The allegation against the petitioner in brief is that when the victim girl aged about 13 years had gone to attend the call of nature, the petitioner gagged her mouth and took her to a nearby bathroom and raped her repeatedly after shutting the door and later allowed her to go home after threatening her not to disclose the incident to anybody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence took place on 17.09.2019 but the F.I.R. has been lodged on 21.09.2019 after which the petitioner has been arrested on 23.09.2019. There is therefore an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. which casts serious doubt as regards the prosecution case. He further submitted that the F.I.R. has been scribed by somebody else and the knife allegedly used by the petitioner has not been recovered for which the case against the petitioner appears to be suspicious especially in the absence of external injuries on her body. In support of his submissions, he relies on the decisions of Md. Ali @ Gudu v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in ( 2015 ) 7 SCC 272 : (2015) 3 SCC Crl.82 and Dinesh Kumar Maurya vs State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2012 ( 2 ) ACR 1260, copies of which he has filed alongwith a memo for perusal of the Court.

6. Mr. G.R.Mohapatra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for bail stating that the minor victim has implicated the petitioner in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and her medical examination report supports her allegations . His further submission was that this is not the stage to examine the contentions and decisions relied on by the leaned counsel for the petitioner, which is a matter for trial.

7. In the case of Md. Ali @ Gudu (supra), while hearing on appeal against an order of conviction, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted the appellant as delay of almost three months had not been explained by the prosecution, some vital witnesses had not been examined and the manner of recovery of the prosecutrix had not been explained.

In the case of Dinesh Kumar Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2016 (2) ACR 1260, there was an unexplained delay of three-four days in lodging the FIR and recovery memo of the victim was not available on record and the evidence of the victim was not found credible for which the court acquitted the accused.

8. I have perused the statement of the victim recorded under Section - 164 Cr.P.C where she has described the manner in which the offence was committed . Her medical examination report reveals presence of injuries on her private parts .

9. It would be trite but necessary to observe that a threadbare analysis of materials are not necessary while considering a prayer for bail .These are to be considered at the time of trial or hearing of the appeal and hence the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be considered at this stage and he may rely on them at the time of hearing of the appeal, if so advised . It would be apposite to extract the relevant portion from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar@ Polia reported in (2020) 2 SCC 118 which is as follows :

'12 The determinati