Bombay High Court
RAMA SUSHIL KANOJIYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicants, Rama Sushil Kanojiya and Meena Suresh Jain, subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered bail applications filed by Rama Sushil Kanojiya and Meena Suresh Jain, who were charged in Crime No.0247 of 2025 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of an organised group that arranged fake marriages, cheated families by taking gold and cash, and were involved in child sexual offences, while the defence contended that the applicants were merely relatives of the girl and had no direct participation. The court noted that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed, and the maximum punishment for the offences attributable to the applicants was seven years. Weighing the nature of the allegations against the limited severity of the punishments, the court held that continued incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Consequently, the court granted bail to both applicants subject to a personal bond and several conditions, including weekly police reporting and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants, charged with offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, are entitled to bail pending trial.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 3(5), 351(1), 64, 64(2)(m), 96
- Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 — s. 10, 9
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 12, 4, 8
Subjects
- bail
- fake marriage
- cheating
- child sexual offences
- child marriage
- organized crime
- undertrial detention
- bail conditions
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24549
1 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 867 OF 2026
RAMA SUSHIL KANOJIYA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Sachin P. Sonawane, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. V. K. Kotecha, APP for Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Yash A. Jadhav, Advocate for Assist to A.P.P.
…
WITH
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
BAIL APPLICATION NO.824 OF 2026
MEENA SURESH JAIN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JUNE, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Bail Application No.824 of 2026 is not on board, taken on
board.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sachin P. Sonawane for the
Applicants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. V. K. Kotecha for
Respondent No.1–State, and Mr. Yash A. Jadhav, learned Advocate
appointed to assist the prosecution.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the Informant and
Janhavi Borse were friends. In January 2025, Janhavi Borse and her
mother, Meena Borse, called the Informant, along with her friends
2 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
Harshal and Roshan, to Meena Borse's house. There, they accused the
Informant of committing theft from Meena Borse's house. The
Informant requested one month's time regarding the allegation. After
one month, Meena Borse again contacted the Informant by phone. The
Informant informed Manisha Jain about these phone calls and the
harassment caused by Meena Borse. Manisha Jain told the Informant
that if she was in need of money, she could arrange a fake marriage for
her. Due to the continuous harassment and pressure exerted by Meena
Borse, the Informant gave her consent to the proposal made by
Manisha Jain. Thereafter, the Informant was married to Ashish
Gangadhare. All the accused persons assured the Informant that they
would bring her back within one month and instructed her to maintain
physical relations with Ashish Gangadhare during that period.
However, even after the lapse of one month, when the Informant
repeatedly requested all the accused persons to take her back, they
threatened her by stating that they would lodge a false FIR against her
if she continued to insist.
4. By the present applications, the Applicants seek their release
on regular bail in connection with Crime No.0247 of 2025 registered
on 04.07.2025 with Ramanand Nagar Police Station, District Jalgaon,
for the offences punishable under Sections 96, 64, 64(2)(m), 351(1)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 8 and 12 of
3 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO
Act), and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act,
2006.
5. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that the
Applicants stand on the same footing and, therefore, both applications
may be considered together.
6. Learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that, at the
highest, the allegations against the Applicants are that they were
members of a group which approached families with marriage
proposals. It is alleged that marriages were performed on the basis of
such proposals and that, thereafter, the bride was made to stay with the
husband for some time. Subsequently, gold ornaments and cash were
allegedly taken away, thereby cheating the concerned families.
7. In Bail Application No.867 of 2026, it is alleged that the
Applicant was residing with the girl as her relative. After the marriage
was performed and after residing for some time at the matrimonial
home, the girl allegedly left with gold ornaments and cash. The learned
Advocate submits that the Applicants are merely relatives of the girl
and have been falsely implicated. According to him, there is no
material to indicate their direct involvement in the alleged acts.
8. Learned Advocate for the Applicants further submits that
even if the allegations are accepted as they stand, the maximum
4 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
punishment prescribed for the offences attributed to the Applicants is
up to seven years' imprisonment. He points out that the investigation is
complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed. He submits that
the Applicants are ready to abide by any condition that may be
imposed by this Court and, therefore, deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned APP Mr. V. K. Kotecha and Mr. Yash A.
Jadhav, learned Advocate assisting the prosecution, strongly opposed
the applications. They submit that the Applicants are part of an
organised group which targeted families by arranging marriages on
false pretences. According to the prosecution, after the marriage and
after staying for some time with the family of the groom, the girl, along
with the other accused, would leave the matrimonial home carrying
gold ornaments and cash received at the time of marriage. It is
submitted that this was the modus operandi adopted by the accused
persons to cheat innocent families. They further submit that the victim
girl herself was being used in the said racket and that all the accused
persons were actively involved in the commission of the offences.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Advocates for the respective parties and perused the charge-sheet. As
regards the offences under the POCSO Act, the allegations are
primarily against Accused No.7. So far as the present Applicants are
concerned, the allegations indicate that they were residing with and
5 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
assisting the girl and were related to the events surrounding the
marriage. The investigation is now complete and the charge-sheet has
been filed. Considering the nature of the allegations against the
Applicants and the fact that the maximum punishment prescribed for
the offences attributable to them is up to seven years, I am of the view
that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the Applicants
incarcerated as undertrial prisoners. Accordingly, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
I. The applications are allowed.
II. Applicants – Rama Sushil Kanojiya and Meena Suresh
Jain be released on bail in connection with Crime
No.0247 of 2025 registered on 04.07.2025 with
Ramanand Nagar Police Station, District Jalgaon, for the
offences punishable under Sections 96, 64, 64(2)(m),
351(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Sections 9
and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, on
executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) each with one solvent surety in the like
amount, subject to the following conditions:
6 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
(a) The Applicants shall report to the concerned police
station on every week till conclusion of the trial. If
they indulgent in similar type of offences, learned
APP and learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 are
at liberty to file application for cancellation of bail.
(b) The Applicants shall attend each and every date
before the learned Trial Court, till conclusion of trial
unless specifically exempted.
(c) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any
prosecution witness and shall not tamper with the
prosecution evidence.
(d) In the event of breach of the condition, it will be
open for the prosecution or the complainant to
approach the concerned Court for cancellation of
bail notwithstanding the fact that this Court has
passed this order of granting bail to the Applicant.
III. Needless to state that the observations made herein are
prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of
the present bail application. The Trial Court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations made in this order
while deciding the case on its own merits.
7 of 7 902-BA.867.2026
IV. Bail before the learned Trial Court.
11. The fees of Mr. Yash A. Jadhav, learned Advocate appointed
to assist the prosecution, are quantified at Rs.6,000/- each and shall be
paid through the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,
Aurangabad.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…