Court Holds Age Alone Insufficient for Bail Amidst Prima Facie Evidence Including Prior Apology and Witness Statements
In a significant judgment delivered on September 11, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, rejected the anticipatory bail application of Ganpatbhai Dayaljibhai Patel, a 70-year-old man accused of serious molestation and obscene demands against a 21-year-old woman. The case, registered at Mandal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, under FIR No. 11192035260238 of 2026, has drawn attention to the stringent parameters governing anticipatory bail in serious offences under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The allegations against the applicant are grave and involve repeated misconduct. The complainant, a young woman, accused Patel of attempting to molest her on an earlier occasion, for which he had reportedly apologized, a fact corroborated by a video recording of his apology. However, on July 31, 2026, the applicant allegedly approached the complainant again when she was alone and made obscene demands. The complainant informed her family and approached the police two days later, citing fear of social stigma as the reason for the delay.
During the hearing, the applicant's counsel argued that the FIR was a false implication motivated by a pre-existing land dispute between the families. It was also contended that the applicant's advanced age and infirmity made it physically impossible for him to commit the alleged acts. Furthermore, the defense highlighted a counter-complaint filed by the applicant's wife regarding an assault by the complainant's relatives, suggesting a tit-for-tat dispute.
Opposing the bail plea, the Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized the consistency of the complainant's statements recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the corroboration by multiple witnesses including family members and villagers, and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unravel the complete facts.
Justice Thaker, after careful examination of the sequence of events, stated that the applicant's age, while relevant, could not be the sole ground for anticipatory bail when the investigation revealed prima facie evidence supporting the allegations. The Court noted the unusual pattern where the applicant first attempted molestation, then apologized, yet was allegedly involved in a similar incident later, underscoring the seriousness of the charges.
The Court relied on precedents such as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra and Jai Prakash Singh vs State of Bihar, underscoring that anticipatory bail in serious offences is an exceptional relief granted only when the court is prima facie convinced of false implication and no risk of misuse of liberty.
Concluding the order, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, directing the trial court to independently evaluate the evidence without being influenced by the observations made at this stage. The judgment reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to balancing individual liberty with societal interest, particularly in cases involving sexual offences against women.
Bottom Line:
The age of an accused alone cannot be a ground for granting anticipatory bail in cases involving serious allegations, especially when the material collected during the investigation supports the allegations.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482, Section 75(2), Section 78(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 183
Ganpatbhai Dayaljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979920
