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 2026:BHC-AUG:24549 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