The Gujarat High Court has rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by a 70-year-old man in connection with allegations of repeated misconduct towards a 21-year-old woman. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker held that the applicant’s age, though relevant, could not by itself justify protection from arrest when the investigation had collected prima facie material supporting the allegations.
The order was passed on September 11, 2026, in a criminal miscellaneous application arising from an FIR registered at Mandal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, under Sections 75(2) and 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Background
According to the FIR, there had been an earlier incident in which the applicant was alleged to have attempted to molest the complainant. The order records that he subsequently apologised, and the apology was allegedly recorded on a mobile phone.
The prosecution case was that another incident took place on July 31, 2026, when the complainant was alone. The applicant allegedly approached her and made obscene demands. She informed her family members and approached the police two days later. The Court noted that the investigation had also recorded statements of witnesses concerning the material allegations.
The applicant disputed the allegations and claimed that the FIR was motivated by an existing land dispute between the families. His counsel also relied upon a separate incident of August 1, 2026, concerning an alleged assault on the applicant, and argued that the present FIR was a counterblast.
Justice Thaker examined the sequence of events and noted that the investigation contained material concerning the earlier incident, the subsequent apology and the later allegation dated July 31, 2026. The Court also considered the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, noting that her version regarding the material facts had remained consistent.
The Court further observed that the two-day delay in approaching the police could not, at the anticipatory bail stage, be considered sufficient by itself to discard the allegations. The complainant had explained the delay by referring to fear of social reaction, while the Court clarified that whether this explanation ultimately deserved acceptance was a matter for appreciation of evidence at the appropriate stage.
On the applicant’s age, the Court made the position clear:
“The age of the applicant alone cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail when the material collected during investigation supports the allegations at this stage.”
The Court also stressed that it was not deciding the truth of the allegations at this stage. It said that the question of guilt or innocence would have to be decided later on the basis of evidence.
Considering the allegations, the sequence of the two incidents, the complainant’s statement, witness statements, the material concerning the earlier incident and the other investigation material, the Court found prima facie material against the applicant.
The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretion in his favour and rejected the anticipatory bail application. Rule was discharged. It further clarified that the observations were tentative and confined to the bail proceedings, and that the trial court would decide the case independently on its merits.
Case Detials:
Case Title: Ganpatbhai Dayaljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 19926 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
Decision Date: September 11, 2026
