Gujarat HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail of 70-Year-Old Man Accused of Repeated Sexual Misconduct, Says Age Alone Cannot Override Prima Facie Material

Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker of the Gujarat High Court declined anticipatory bail to a 70-year-old man accused of molestation and obscene demands, citing a recorded apology for an earlier incident and a second alleged offence on 31 July 2026.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 11 September 2026 rejected the anticipatory bail application of Ganpatbhai Dayaljibhai Patel, a 70-year-old man accused of molesting a 21-year-old woman and subsequently making obscene demands of her. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, sitting singly, held that the applicant's age, though a relevant consideration, could not by itself justify the grant of anticipatory bail when the investigation had collected prima facie material supporting the allegations. Central to the refusal was the recorded sequence of events: a prior incident of attempted molestation for which the applicant had apologised on video, followed by a second alleged incident on 31 July 2026 after a gap of roughly three months. The court found this pattern sufficient to decline protection from arrest at the pre-trial stage.

The FIR and the Alleged Sequence of Events

The FIR, registered as C.R. No.11192035260238 of 2026 with Mandal Police Station, Ahmedabad Rural, named Ganpatbhai Patel for offences under Sections 75(2) and 78(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The application before the High Court was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

According to the FIR, the applicant had previously attempted to molest the complainant. After that first incident, he approached her and apologised, and that apology was captured on a mobile phone recording. The prosecution relied on this recording as corroborating material. Investigation also produced statements from witnesses — including the complainant's mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, and other villagers — who confirmed both the earlier incident and the subsequent apology.

On 31 July 2026, with the complainant alone at home, the applicant is alleged to have returned and made obscene demands of her. The complainant informed her family members immediately but approached the police only two days later. She explained that fear of social consequences had delayed her complaint.

The complainant's statement was also recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Justice Thaker noted that her version of both incidents had remained consistent across the FIR and the Section 183 statement.

Applicant's Case: Land Dispute, Counter-FIR, and Physical Incapacity

Counsel for the applicant advanced several grounds in support of bail. The primary submission was that the FIR was a false implication motivated by a pre-existing land dispute between the two families. It was argued that the complaint was a counter-blast to a separate FIR filed by the applicant's wife in connection with an incident on 1 August 2026, when the complainant's husband and brother-in-law allegedly visited the applicant's residence and assaulted him.

Counsel contended that the applicant, at 70 years of age, was physically incapable of overpowering the complainant and was not even present in the village for the whole day on the relevant date. The two-day delay in lodging the complaint was pressed as a circumstance casting doubt on the allegations. It was also submitted that the applicant was a permanent resident of the village, was available for investigation, and would not flee from justice.

How the Court Analysed the Material

Justice Thaker examined the investigation material in the sequence in which events were alleged to have unfolded, rather than treating the 31 July 2026 incident in isolation.

On the two-day delay, the court held that it could not, at this stage, be used on its own to discard the allegations. The complainant's explanation — fear of social reaction — would need to be weighed alongside the totality of investigation material at trial. The court expressly said that such appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at the anticipatory bail stage.

On the counter-FIR filed by the applicant's wife, Justice Thaker acknowledged it as a circumstance placed before the court. He held, however, that the existence of the wife's complaint did not wipe out the material collected in the present investigation. The two sets of allegations were to be considered independently on the material available in each case. The wife's complaint could not, at this stage, be treated as sufficient to reject the present complainant's allegations.

The court paid specific attention to the pattern of conduct disclosed by the investigation. The applicant had apologised — on record, on video — for an earlier incident of attempted molestation. That apology itself confirmed, at a prima facie level, that the earlier incident had occurred. The second alleged incident on 31 July 2026 then took place against that acknowledged backdrop. Justice Thaker held that this sequence could not be ignored: “It is not a case where the present allegation relates only to one incident.”

On the applicant's age, the court was unequivocal. While age was a relevant factor to consider, it could not be a standalone ground for grant of anticipatory bail when the material collected during investigation supported the allegations at that stage. The court balanced this against the complainant being a 21-year-old woman whose allegations of molestation and obscene demands were supported by witness statements, a video recording of the apology, and a consistent Section 183 statement.

Legal Standards Applied

Justice Thaker relied on two Supreme Court decisions to frame the standard applicable to anticipatory bail in serious offences.

In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court had held that personal liberty is among the most prized possessions of an individual, but not at the cost of the larger interest of society and the public.

In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported at (2012) 4 SCC 379, the Supreme Court laid down that parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in serious offences must be satisfied, and the court must record reasons. The court quoted the ratio that anticipatory bail “can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.”

Applying these standards, Justice Thaker found no such exceptional circumstances here. The material on record did not show, even at a prima facie level, that the applicant had been falsely implicated.

Outcome

Criminal Misc. Application No. 19926 of 2026 was rejected. Rule was discharged. The court clarified that all observations in the order were tentative and confined to the anticipatory bail application. The trial court was directed to decide the case on its own merits without being influenced by any observation in the order.