Gujarat HC Refuses Bail to Woman Accused of Facilitating Flesh Trade of 10-Year-Old at Her Own Home

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar dismissed the bail application of a woman accused of running a flesh trade ring involving a 10-year-old victim, rejecting the argument that being a lady accused warranted leniency.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 13 July 2026 dismissed the regular bail application of Solanki Ankuben Jitendrakumar, a woman accused of facilitating the repeated sexual exploitation of a 10-year-old girl at her own residential home. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, sitting singly, found that the prosecution had collected sufficient material—including the minor victim's statement recorded before a Magistrate—to establish prima facie involvement. The court held that neither the filing of a charge-sheet nor the applicant's gender constituted a ground to grant bail in a case of this gravity. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings given the applicant's status as an under-trial prisoner.

FIR, Charges and the Accused's Custody

The case arises from FIR No. CR No.11204068250543 of 2025 registered at Vadtal Police Station, District Kheda. The applicant has been in custody since 29 January 2026. After the initial complaint was filed against accused No. 1 Sohil Firozbhai Diwan, the investigating agency arraigned four additional persons, including the applicant, in the charge-sheet.

The charges against the applicant span three statutes. Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, she faces prosecution under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87 and 54. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, she is charged under Sections 5(L), 5(j)2, 6, 12 and 16. She also faces charges under Sections 3(1)(W-1), 3(1)(W-2) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The application before the High Court was filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Notably, the original complainant had expired by the time the matter came up before the court, and his legal heirs were reported unavailable or untraceable. The court proceeded to consider the application on its own merits with the assistance of the Additional Public Prosecutor.

What the Prosecution Alleged

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Ms Shruti Pathak, opposed bail on the ground that the applicant was the kingpin of the offence. According to the prosecution's case, the applicant was fully aware that the victim was a minor aged 10 years. Despite this knowledge, the applicant used her residential home as a venue where accused Nos. 1 to 4 were called and facilitated to develop physical relations with the minor girl.

The prosecution further alleged that the applicant sent the minor victim to the homes of the accused as part of a flesh trade arrangement. The applicant also called a juvenile to her home who, under the pretext of marrying the victim, developed a physical relationship with her. As a consequence, the minor victim became pregnant and delivered a baby girl in December 2025. The juvenile has been charge-sheeted separately, and that matter is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.

The victim's statement was recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad, and the prosecution relied on it as central material establishing the applicant's role. The APP also flagged the risk of evidence tampering if the applicant were released.

Applicant's Case and the Arguments Advanced

Mr KG Patel, appearing for the applicant (for Ms Priyanka A Gupta), argued that the applicant was innocent and had been falsely arrayed as an accused. He characterised her role as limited to harbouring and facilitating the offence. He pointed out that the charge-sheet had already been filed and nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from the applicant. He also urged that the applicant had been behind bars since 29 January 2026 and that, given she was a lady accused, the court could grant bail with stringent conditions.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Suthar rejected each strand of the applicant's argument after examining the charge-sheet papers.

On the argument that the charge-sheet had been filed, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Virupakshappa Gouda v State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 406. The bench quoted from that judgment: “filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.” The court held that after filing of the charge-sheet, the prosecution allegations remained in full force, and the filing by itself was not a ground to release an accused.

On the argument that the applicant was a lady and therefore entitled to bail, the court was direct. Justice Suthar held that “merely applicant is a lady is not a ground to enlarge her on bail” where the accused was involved in serious crimes against a 10-year-old girl and had allowed the victim to be exploited repeatedly.

The court also engaged with the statutory framework of the POCSO Act. It observed that the Act was enacted to protect the inalienable human right of children to live with dignity, to grow and develop in an atmosphere conducive to mental and physical health, and to be protected from sexual exploitation. The court noted that proceedings under the POCSO Act are governed by the presumption clauses in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, which weighed against granting bail on the facts before it.

On the question of bail principles generally, the court set out the familiar considerations: ensuring the accused's availability at trial, preventing tampering with prosecution evidence, and protecting the interests of prosecution witnesses. It concluded that if the applicant were enlarged on bail, the possibility of misuse of liberty and tampering with evidence could not be ruled out. The court characterised the offences as not merely against the victim as an individual but against the State.

The Limited Role Argument Rejected

The prosecution's characterisation of the applicant as the kingpin of the operation stood in direct contrast to the defence's argument of a limited facilitation role. The court, after perusing the charge-sheet, accepted the prosecution's narrative. It found that the applicant had used her own home as the venue for repeated assaults on a girl of tender age, had actively called accused persons to that home, had dispatched the victim to the homes of those accused, and had brought in a juvenile under the guise of marriage. On this basis, the court held that prima facie involvement of the applicant was clearly made out.

The court further observed that Section 16 of the POCSO Act — which deals with abetment — was squarely attracted, as the applicant had abetted accused persons in committing offences under Sections 5(L), 5(j) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Order

Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail — After Chargesheet) No. 9609 of 2026 was dismissed. Rule was discharged. The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in view of the applicant's position as an under-trial prisoner. Justice Suthar made clear that all observations in the order were tentative and that the trial court shall decide the matter independently on its own merits without being influenced by the High Court's order.