RAMKRISHNA RAGHUNATH BURKULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is a primary teacher, was working at Primary School at Deulwada, Taluka Kudal, District-Sindhudurga. There he was staying as tenant in the premises of the father of the prosecutrix by name Arjun Mistry. Rupali, the prosecutrix was then studying in the primary school. During the course of his stay, petitioner develop intimacy with Rupali and on 9th June, 1996 both of them fled away and moved at various places including Nanded. A complaint was lodged by father of the prosecutrix on June 1996, on the basis of which offence came to be registered and thereafter both, petitioner and the girl were brought to Kudal. The prosecutrix Rupali was then aged about 10 years and during investigation it was found that petitioner had sexual intercourse with her. That is how, offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC are alleged to be committed. The petitioner had applied for grant of bail to the Sessions Court at Sawantwadi, but that application has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Mundargi for the petitioner and Mr. Deshpande, APP for the Respondent State. At present, it is not disputed that Rupali was then about 13 years of age and that petitioner took her to various places and had sexual intercourse with her. Statement of Rupali recorded in investigation would go to show that the petitioner was insisting her to marry with him and had threatened to commit suicide if she declined. On such, insistence, petitioner had taken away Rupali on 9th June 1996. The Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the petitioner observing that he is likely to tamper with the evidence of the relatives. He has ignored that the other persons with whom petitioner and Rupali stayed are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in this case and there is no question of tampering with evidence. There remains only Rupali, to be the main witness in this case. It was submitted by Mr. Mundargi for the petitioner that petitioner came to be suspended and he is prepared to stay at his native place in Nanded District and would not enter the limits of Sindhudurga District, except for the trial of this case and on such condition he may be granted bail.

(3.) THE petitioner has been arrested on 31st August 1996 and since then he is in jail. Obviously, the person accused of an offence is not to be denied bail only by way of punishment. It is not alleged on behalf of the prosecution that petitioner is likely to abscond and flee away. Allegation of tampering appears to be without any material and substance. Having regard to the facts as stated above, and the circumstances, I find this to be a fit case to grant bail on certain conditions.