1 Appln 3238-10 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3238 OF 2010 Yogesh Thopate ..Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the Respondent  State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 23RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C. . The Applicant, who is alleged to have raped 14 years old girl seeks bail. The learned Counsel for the Applicant took me through various statements of the victim recorded by the police as also statement of witness by name Rajendra Vitthal Khatu. There are some inconsistencies in her statement which would definitely be looked into while appreciating evidence. As far as role of the Applicant is concerned, it was he who raped 2 Appln 3238-10 her. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that from the statement of Rajendra Vitthal Khatu it could be seen that even before the FIR was registered, disclosure that the Applicant had raped the victim does not alter the fact that victim consistently claimed to have been raped by the Applicant. Her disclosure of the said fact to some other persons in the village before FIR was lodged is something which the learned Judge would have to consider while appreciating the evidence. Since the trial has already commenced, the learned Trial Judge would endeavour to complete the trial as early as possible and the prosecution would see the witnesses are produced on the dates fixed by the Trial Court. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)