ORAL JUDGMENT D.J. Mobarir, J. - This is an application under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code filed by original complainant-prosecutrix for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the non applicant-accused. 2. A complaint dated 5.9.1988 came to be made by the applicant and the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the non-applicant under the following facts and circumstances Renuka Raising Rathod-applicant herestyled herself as being a 16 years old girl in this application dated 12-101988. Therein she submits that she is a poor labourer and the opponent being a cultivator, she had been to his field for work on wages. The applicant became a victim of the opponent's lust. Eventually she permitted him regular sexual intercourse with her upon his blandishment that he would marry and take her as his wife. The illicit intimacy resulted in conception. 3. The complainant, therefore, started pressing the non-applicant for an early marriage which he went on prolonging and when she appeared to be bent upon a marriage, he threatened to kill her out right. She, therefore, lodged a report against him in the first instance on 25.8.1988. While this complaint was under enquiry, the non-applicant fearing evil consequences, contacted and assured her that he would definitely marry her. He then offered a pedah to her which was mixed with some substance which resulted in an untimely delivery, fn fact an abortion. When-the abortion resulted, the non-applicant told her that he was totally free in view of the abortion and that he would, therefore, not bother about marrying her at all. The complainant lodged a report of this abortion at the Police Station, Darwah on 5.9.1988 and she was also sent for medical examination which satisfactorily established' that she had been in a state of pregnancy. 4. Apprehending arrest for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, the nonapplicant applied to the Sessions Judge, Yavatmal for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. The application was granted and he was directed to be released on bail, in the event of arrest. 5. Having come to know about the nonapplicant's enlargement on bail, the complainant made an application to this Court on 12-10-1988 praying that the bail as granted should be cancelled. This was for the reason that after grant of anticipatory bail, the non-applicant had threatened to kill her. 5. Having come to know about the nonapplicant's enlargement on bail, the complainant made an application to this Court on 12-10-1988 praying that the bail as granted should be cancelled. This was for the reason that after grant of anticipatory bail, the non-applicant had threatened to kill her. Similarly, he threatened to kill her other family members also. Thirdly, he threatened to do away by murdering even the witnesses to the commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, namely, Bandu Sonsing Rathod and Tattam Gobaru Rathod of village Wagad, In the- circumstances, the complainant has sought an order for cancellation of bail earlier granted to the non-applicant. 6. The complainant was unrepresented and learned Advocate Shri Kardikar has been appointed as a Counsel to duly represent her at the hearing. The non-applicant was also duly served with thel10tice of this application, but could not arrange for his representation by engaging a Counsel at his own cost. Learned Advocate Shri Bhoot has, therefore, been appointed as a counsel at the cost or the State. I have heared both these learned counsel as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. A reply has in fact also been filed on behalf of the State, submitting that there is no substance in this application. 7. What the Court would have to appreciate, while considering the prayer for cancellation of bail is whether between 1.10.1989 when the non-applicant was enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge and 12.10.1988 when she chose to make this application to this Court for cancellation of bail, any incident as alleged had taken place, namely, incidents of threatening the complainant herself, her parents as also the witnesses with dire consequences including murder. It will be appreciated that the complainant's application itself is without any affidavit in support in the first instance, nor the affidavits of two Bandu Rathod and Tattam Rathod are filed on record, in support of the allegations of threats administered to them by the non-applicant. In the circumstances, it is submitted by Shri Bhoot as well as the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State that there is nothing which would support the allegations made against the non-applicant, for cancellation of bail granted to him. There are two replies which appear to have been filed on behalf of the State - the first one is dated 14.3.1989 and the second is dated 30.8.1989. Public Prosecutor for the State that there is nothing which would support the allegations made against the non-applicant, for cancellation of bail granted to him. There are two replies which appear to have been filed on behalf of the State - the first one is dated 14.3.1989 and the second is dated 30.8.1989. In the latter reply it has also been submitted that the non-applicant had come to be arrested under-Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code and that till as late as 28.8.1989 he had been detained in jail. In the circumstances, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has stated that the bail, as granted on 1.10.1988, in view of these subsequent events of the year 1989 may be cancelled. The proceedings instituted under Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code and the arrest for the same, are in the first place entirely unconnected with the commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, for which appreheding arrest for which anticipatory bail was granted under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, in view of the arrest under Section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code as such, nothing would turn. Of the two replied that are on record, this is the only circumstance which required reference while deciding this application. In the circumstances, the present application would have to be rejected for want of any material to hold that the non-applicant has forfeited his right to remain enlarged on bail. 8. In the result, the application is rejected. Application dismissed.