Bombay High Court
JAMILABAI NASARU PATHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The Court granted bail to all the accused.
Summary
The Court considered bail applications filed by Jamilabai Pathan, Amol Sonawane, Roshan Dhangar Bhil and Ajay Devde in connection with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act arising from alleged kidnapping by enticement and sexual relations with minor girls aged 16 and above. The victims had allegedly eloped with the accused and later claimed the relationships were consensual, with no evidence of force or coercion in medical and police reports. The prosecution argued that consent is immaterial when the victims are minors and alleged that Jamilabai facilitated the act, but the Court found no material linking her to kidnapping or trafficking. The Court noted the lack of incriminating evidence, the age of the victims, and the applicants' clean records, and referred to precedent that permits bail in similar circumstances. Consequently, the Court granted bail to all applicants subject to bond and surety conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused charged under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 142, 143 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act despite the victims being minors.
- Whether the alleged consent of victims aged above 16 impacts the bail decision in offences involving kidnapping and sexual exploitation.
- Whether there is sufficient evidentiary material to justify continued detention of the accused, particularly Jamilabai Pathan.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 137(2), 142, 143, 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- bail
- kidnapping by enticement
- POCSO
- minor
- consent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- sexual exploitation
- elopement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:18198 1 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 293 OF 2026
JAMILABAI NASARU PATHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 549 OF 2026
1. AMOL ISHWAR SONAWANE
2. ROSHAN @ SHRAVAN DHANGAR BHIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
925 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 297 OF 2026
JAMILABAI NASARU PATHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 554 OF 2026
AJAY SUKLAL DEVDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Applicants in all : Mr. Bhushan Mahajan.
APPs for Respondent/s-State : Mr. C. V. Bhadane, Mr. G. O.
Wattamwar, respectively.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all : Mr. Vishwambhar
Bhosale (appointed)
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 18.04.2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard both sides.
2 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
2. The applicants are seeking enlargement on bail in
respect of offence bearing Crime No.380 of 2025 and Crime
No.381 of 2025, respectively both registered with Bhadgaon
Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the offences punishable
under Sections 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 142, 143 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.
3. Though distinct offences are registerd against the
applicants, the incident is common.
4. Bail Application Nos.293 of 2026 and 297 of 2026 are
preferred by Jamilabai Pathan in respect of Crime Nos.380 of
2025 and 381 of 2025. Bail Application Nos.554 of 2026 is
preferred by Ajay Suklal Devde in respect of Crime No.381 of
2025, Bail Application No.549 of 2026 is preferred by Amol
Sonawane and Roshan Bhil in respect of Crime No.380 of
2025. Applicant Jamilabai is arrested on 18.12.2025.
Applicant Amol, Roshan and Ajay are arrested on 13.11.2025.
5. The victims are minor girls of 16 and above years old.
The informants in both the offences are their mothers. It is
reported by them that minor victims eloped from village Girad,
Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, In the night of 19.10.2025.
A complaint of kidnapping by enticement was lodged by the
parents. On 13.11.2025, the informants were called in the
3 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
Police Station as the victims were found with the accused
persons.
6. It revealed in the investigation that in the night
intervening 19.10.2025 and 20.10.2025, the victims eloped
with three accused boys with whom they were in love and
reached Delhi. Applicant Roshan is said to have his aunt’s place
in Delhi, who is applicant Jamilabai. They are said to have
resided with Jamilabai. They were apprehended on 12.11.2025
and brought back to the Police Station. The investigation is
over and charge-sheet is filed on 08.01.2026.
7. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the applicant
Jamilabai submits that she is 66 years old and having no
criminal antecedents. No material is collected to attribute any
offence under provisions of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)
Act. There is no incriminating material to connect her to overt
act of kidnapping and sexual exploitation of the minors. She is
not even acquainted with the victims and the applicants except
Roshan, who was nephew.
8. Learned counsel appearing for applicants submits that
his clients applicant Ajay, Roshan and Amol were having love
affair with the victims. The victims voluntarily accompanied
them. The victims are of more than 16 years old. They are
4 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
stated to be willing to perform marriage with the victim after
attaining majority. No violence or forcible sexual act is noticed
in the medical report. The statements of the victims would
support their claim.
9. Per contra, learned APPs submit that at the relevant time
victims were minors and the consent is inconsequential.
Applicant Jamilabai is alleged to have exploited the girls by
administering substance to tranquilize them. The statements of
the victims under Section 181 as well as 183 are consistent and
corroborate the prosecution case.
10. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
victims, informants, witnesses and accused persons except
Jamilabai are from village Girad, Taluka Bhadgaon, District
Jalgaon. Applicant Jamilabai is resident of Delhi. Accused boys
along with victims are alleged to have travelled from Bhadgaon
to Delhi. I do not see any incriminating material against
applicant Jamilabai for anything done at Girad. She is paternal
aunt of applicant Roshan.
11. Applicant Jamilabai provided shelter to three couples
who eloped from Girad. No material is collected to indicate
that she was indulging in immoral trafficking or girls were
subjected to any act at the instance of Jamilabai at Delhi.
5 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
Nothing is placed on record to show that she was aware of the
relationship between accused and the victims and she
conspired with them. She is 66 years old having no criminal
antecedents. Her further detention is unwarranted.
12. A supplementary statement of mother of one of the
victim girl recorded on 14.11.2025 and the statements of the
victim girls under Section 181 as well as 183 would indicate
that the victims were above 16 years of age. They were
knowing applicant Ajay, Roshan and Amol. There was love
affair between the couples. There was physical relations also.
There is no material to show that the girls were forcibly
kidnapped by the boys.
13. The statements of the victims would indicate that the
promise of marriage were extended by the boys and there were
frequent physical contacts. No element of force or coercion or
deception is noticed. This Court is aware that when victims are
minor, the consent is immaterial. But the consequences of
consensual act can be looked at the conclusion of trial.
14. I am being pointed out the report of medical
examination of accused boys. In column No.11 of the report
all of them admitted to have kept sexual relations with the
victims due to love affair. The medical reports of the victims
6 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
indicate that there was no evidence of any force rather it was
reported by them that due to love affair there was sexual
relations.
15. I have gone through judgment of Co-ordinate Bench in
Sunil Mahadev Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra ; 2016 CRI.L.J.
(NOC) 36 (BOM.) as well as judgment of Supreme Court in the
matter of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Anurudh ; AIR OnLine
2024 ALL 1201. Those are helpful to the applicants.
16. Considering the overall circumstances, I am inclined to
grant bail. I, therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) Bail Applications are allowed.
(ii) Applicants JAMILABAI NASARU PATHAN, AMOL
ISHWAR SONAWANE, ROSHAN @ SHRAVAN
DHANGAR BHIL and AJAY SUKLAL DEVDE shall
be released on bail in Crime No.380 of 2025 and
Crime No.381 of 2025, respectively both
registered with Bhadgaon Police Station, District
Jalgaon, for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 142,
143 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4
7 924-BA.293-26 & ors (924 & 925).odt
and 6 of POCSO Act, on furnishing P. R. bond of
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousands only)
each with one solvent surety of like amount each
on the following conditions :
(a) The applicants shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence and contact the
prosecution witnesses.
(b) The applicants shall co-operate for
expeditious disposal of the trial and attend
the dates punctually.
(iii) Bail application is disposed of accordingly.
(iv) For the assistance rendered by learned counsel for
respondent No.2, Legal Aid Services Authority
shall quantify his fees of Rs.6,000/-, each.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
...
vmk/-
Checking your session…