IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( BAIL ) NO. 231 OF 2010 RIYAZ SHAIKH ... Applicant Versus STATE THROUGH P.P, AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th October, 2010 P.C.:- The applicant herein is the accused who is undergoing trial under Sections 376 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The incident took place on 4-5- 2010. Charge has been framed for the said offences. The statement of the victim has been recorded on 4-10-2010. Application for bail was filed on behalf of the accused on 1-9-2010 which came to be rejected on 12-10-2010 i.e. after the deposition of the victim was completed. The applicant, therefore. has approached this Court for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application because there are other material witnesses to be examined and amongst them is one Wazir who is stated to be the brother-in-law of the victim and who had stated in his statement to the Police that after the incident of rape the accused had abused him in filthy language and threatened him that he would see him and the family members of the victim, in case their case was not withdrawn. The said Wazir has stated that the victim and the victim's family are under constant threats and he had made a written complaint to the Police on 7-5-2010. Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant after having read the evidence of the victim has submitted that the sexual intercourse by the victim with the accused appears to be consensual. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the said Wazir was not an eye witness and therefore there would be nothing to depose to as regards the incident. Shri C. A. Ferreira, learned Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the victim has given her age as 16 years in her evidence and earlier when the Ossification test was done her age was determined to be 17 years, 6 months plus or minus 3 months. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the applicant ought to have been tried by the learned Children's Court. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor ought to have been made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. A perusal of the evidence of the victim prima facie, shows that the act was committed by the accused under threats and not only that subsequently the accused absconded and threatened the said Wazir that the complaint should be taken back. Past conduct of the accused is a good indicator of his likely future conduct. Tampering with the witnesses has always been considered as a good ground for denying bail to an accused person. In such circumstances, this would not be a fit case to admit the applicant-accused to bail at this stage. Application therefore is dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.