1 criapln2383-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2383 OF 2011 Rangnath Prabhakar Bhaikar .. APPLICANT Vs The State of Maha. .. RESPONDENT ... Shri S.S.Jadhavar,Adv. for applicant. Shri S.G.Nandedkar,APP for R-State. ... CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 06/07/2011 ORAL ORDER: 1] This application is filed for bail in Crime No.33/10 registered in Tadkalas police station, Dist.Parbhani for offence u/s 376, 366-A, 363 etc. of I.P.C. and also for offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (ii), 3 (1) (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A.P.P. is ready with the papers. The case against applicant is part heard. Both sides are heard. 2] This Court has refused bail on merits to the applicant in 2 criapln2383-11 proceeding no.3746/10. Advocate of applicant submitted that during examination in chief, the prosecutrix took name of one police constable that he had helped present applicant and he had insisted the prosecutrix that she should give statement in favour of applicant. In view of this evidence given by prosecutrix, Sessions Court has directed to make the said constable accused in the proceeding. This order of the Sessions Court is challenged by said constable by filing Writ Petition. Advocate for applicant submitted that nothing can be said about the time which will be required for disposal of the writ petition and so this is change in the circumstance and applicant can be released on bail. He also pointed out that in the FIR there was no mention of rape and only in the supplementary statement, prosecutrix made allegation against applicant of rape. He submitted that evidence can be compared with the FIR and supplementary statement given by the prosecutrix at this stage and on that basis also bail can be granted. 3] The prosecutrix who was aged about 17 years at the relevant time, has made allegation that with the help of other accused, she was kidnapped and she was taken to Pune. In the FIR, she has made allegations that she was taken to Pune for performing her marriage with the present applicant. In supplementary statement, she made allegation that present applicant committed rape on her in Pune. Now she has given evidence that the applicant committed rape on her in 3 criapln2383-11 Pune. There are also allegations that threats were given by present applicant and other accused and threats were given by police constable also. Thus, there is evidence against present applicant in the form of examination in chief and possibility of tampering with the prosecution witness, is increased. Though it can be said that the applicant is now in a fix as stay is granted by this Court in Writ Petition filed by said police constable. Due to aforesaid circumstances, this Court cannot grant bail, it is desirable for him to appear in the writ proceeding and make submissions there, for getting expeditious disposal. So this Court holds that it is not a fit case for granting bail and the application stands rejected. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] umg/criapln2383-11