6crn2804-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2804 OF 2010 Balu @ Balasaheb Bharat Sarade. ..Applicant. Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. .... Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane, Advocate for the applicant. Mr.Y.M. Nakhawa, A.P.P. for the State. .... CORAM : A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time on this application for anticipatory bail preferred by the applicant, apprehending his arrest in the matter of offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1), 3(2) and other allied Sections of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 18 years, regarding the alleged incident of forcible 6crn2804-10 2 sexual intercourse by co-accused on 30th April, 2010 at about 3:30 p.m. and at that time allegedly the present applicant associated the co-accused and initially accosted the girl and took her to the place where the offence of sexual intercourse was committed by the co-accused. 3. Reportedly, earlier two anticipatory bail applications preferred before the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur were rejected. Factually, the second bail application was preferred however in which the fate of the earlier bail application was not mentioned. On this fact, learned Advocate for the applicant submits that said another bail application was preferred by another Advocate and hence filing of earlier bail application was not mentioned. 4. Again learned Advocate for the present applicant submits that the prosecutrix has also filed one affidavit dated 13th May, 2010 giving clean-chit to the present applicant as to not knowing him and he not knowing the caste of the prosecutrix. On this argument, learned A.P.P. submits that 6crn2804-10 3 apparently this is one of the attempts of tampering with the prosecution witness and veracity or otherwise of such affidavit is required to be tested during the trial. 5. All the same, considering the prima facie allegations against the applicant and considering the circumstances under which earlier two applications were presented before the trial Court, it would not be in the fitness of the situation to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Hence, application is disposed of with following order:- :: O R D E R :: [i] Criminal Application No.2804 of 2010 for anticipatory bail stands rejected. (A.R.JOSHI,J.)