The Gujarat High Court has refused anticipatory bail to three people accused of rape, repeated molestation and threatening a woman in Amreli district. The court said the allegations against each accused were specific. It also noted that the mobile phone allegedly used to record the assault had not yet been recovered. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker passed the oral order on October 8, 2026.
The applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking protection from arrest in advance. The FIR, registered at Babra Police Station in Amreli district, invokes Sections 64(2)(m), 75(2), 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The applicants’ lawyers argued that the woman had a consensual relationship with accused No.1, who had proposed marriage to her. They said the marriage did not happen because of caste and age differences. According to the defence, the allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 arose from prior resentment after accused No. 2 disclosed the complainant’s earlier relationship with another man to her brother. They also pointed out that the complaint was filed almost a year after the alleged incident, and that the complainant is an adult.
The Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the accused had allegedly recorded the incident on a mobile phone and used the recording to threaten the complainant and compel her to submit to further demands.
The court examined the allegations against each accused separately. Accused No.1 was alleged to have raped and repeatedly molested the complainant. Accused No.2 was alleged to have tied the complainant’s hands during the incident, recorded it on her mobile phone and subsequently used the alleged recording to threaten her. She then allegedly warned the woman that the video would be shown to her family, or circulated publicly if she went to the police.
On accused No.2’s role, the court observed:
“The allegations therefore disclose active involvement of accused No.2. Her role is not merely that of a person who happened to be present at the place. The allegation is that she restrained the victim, recorded the incident and thereafter used the recording to threaten her.”
Accused No.3, the husband of accused No.2, allegedly demanded physical relations from the woman and threatened her when she refused. The court noted that the complainant, stated to be about 25 years old, had reiterated the material allegations in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS.
The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, observed that the absence of a need for custodial interrogation does not, by itself, justify granting anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation means questioning a person while they are in police custody.
The court said the role attributed to the applicants needs proper investigation, and that how an accused is questioned is for the investigating agency to decide. Finding no case made out for relief, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application and discharged the rule.
Case Title: Rajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 4350 of 2026
