Court Emphasizes Victim's Dignity and Prima Facie Evidence Against Three Accused; Mobile Phone Video Recording Pending Recovery Critical to Investigation
In a significant ruling delivered on October 8, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Mr. Sanjeev J. Thaker, J., refused anticipatory bail to three accused in a grievous sexual offence case involving rape, repeated molestation, and threats. The case, registered under FIR No. C.R. 11193008250793 at Babra Police Station, Amreli district, involves allegations that the accused exploited the victim's vulnerable situation, subjected her to multiple sexual assaults, and used a recorded video to threaten and blackmail her.
The court underscored that such offences not only violate the physical safety of women but also strike at their dignity, confidence, and sense of security, which are crucial for a woman's well-being and societal safety. The victim, a 25-year-old daily wage labourer, accused the three neighbours of heinous acts including rape, molestation, physical assault, and coercion through a video recording made on a mobile phone, which was allegedly used as a tool of blackmail.
The judgment meticulously examined the distinct roles of each accused. Accused No.1 was alleged to have physically assaulted and raped the victim multiple times. Accused No.2 was said to have restrained the victim by tying her hands, recorded the rape on her mobile phone, and threatened the victim with public disclosure of the video if she refused compliance or approached the police. Accused No.3, the husband of accused No.2, was separately accused of demanding physical relations and threatening the victim on refusal.
The court noted that the mobile phone containing the incriminating video had not yet been recovered, making its retrieval and forensic examination an essential part of the ongoing investigation. Given the serious nature of the allegations and the prima facie evidence supporting the prosecution's case, the court held that anticipatory bail was not warranted at the investigation stage.
Referring to authoritative Supreme Court judgments including Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar (2012) and Pratibha Manchanda v. State of Haryana (2023), the court emphasized the high threshold for granting anticipatory bail in serious offences. It reiterated that the absence of custodial interrogation alone cannot justify bail, particularly where the gravity of the offence and societal impact are substantial.
The Court concluded that the accused had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify anticipatory bail. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to protect women's rights and ensure that allegations of sexual violence are thoroughly investigated without premature relief to the accused.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail in serious sexual offences involving rape, molestation, threats and alleged video recording for blackmail cannot be granted where FIR and victim's statement disclose specific and distinct roles of each accused and investigation, including recovery of mobile phone containing alleged video, is still pending.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 64(2)(m), 75(2), 351(3), 54; Section 183 of BNSS
Rajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995521
