The Gujarat High Court on Friday granted regular bail to Molana Mohammad Ramzan Janmohammad, a Muslim cleric accused of solemnising the marriage of a 17-year-and-3-month-old girl without verifying her age or identity documents and of converting her faith. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any circumstances justifying continued detention, noting the absence of allegations of aggravated sexual assault and the completion of the investigation.

The court observed that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 16 June 2026 , and the charge-sheet has already been filed. "Prosecution has ailed to point out the circumstances to continue or prolong his detion," the order stated, aordingly releasing the Molana on a local surety bond of Rs. 25,000.

No Allegation of Sexual Assault Key to Decision

The cleric was booked under multiple provisions including Sections 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 137(2), 87, 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); Sections 4, 6, 17, and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act; Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act; and Section 4A of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.

Justice Suthar underlined that "no any allegation of abbreviated form of sexual assault" was made against the applicant. The court stressed that the Molana was accused of performing the marriage and changing the victim's name without due diligence, but the more serious aspect of sexual assault was not part of the FIR.

The bench also considered that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents and that nothing remains to be recovered or discovered from him. The victim’s age at the time of the incident—just below 18 years—was noted, but the court deemed it a factor weighing in favor of granting bail given the absence of any coercive sexual element.

Pre-Trial Detention Avoided on Constitutional Ground

The high court relied on the settled principle that " bail is a rule and jail is an exception " as upheld by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 and in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240. Observing that the trial will inevitably take time, the court warned that keeping the accused in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment, which infringes upon the fundamental right to personal liberty guarnateed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions

While granting bail, the court imposed a set of conditions to ensure that the applicant does not tamper with justice. The Molana must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one local surety of the like amount. He is required to:

  • Surrender his passport within one week;
  • Not leave Gujarat without prior permission of the trial court;
  • Mark his preseence at the relevant police station once every month for six months between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m.;
  • Furnish his Aadhaar card and contact details to the investing officer; and
  • Not indulge in any illegal activity; any breach could lead to cancellation of bail.

The judge also stated that the trial court would remain unaffected by the preliminary observations on the evidence made in the bail order while conducting the trial.

Timeline and Current Status

The applicant was arrested in June 2026, and the charge-sheet was subsequently filed. With the grant of bail, the Molana is expected to be released from judicial custody shortly unless required in any other case. The court expressly directed authorities to release him only if he is not required in connection with any other offense.

The case is nRT represented in the public domain as a significant one for its interplay between personal liberty, religious practices, and child protection laws. The high court's ruling reinforces that even in cases involving sensitive allegations, the absence of evidence on key charges and the stage of investigation can tilt the scale in favour of bail.

The matter is now set for trial before the competent sessions court, which will hear the evidence on merits without being influenced by the observations made at this bail stage. The rule was absolute, with direct service permitted.