Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
P.M. Raval, J.
Bharatbhai @ Dhamo Jitaji Gehlot – Applicant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Anticipatory Bail) No. 5568 of 2026
Decided On : 10-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Maulik M Soni
For the Respondent: Rohan Shah, APP

Anticipatory bail denied as the serious nature of allegations necessitates custodial interrogation, regardless of the delay in lodging the FIR.

Headnote:(A) BNS, 2023 - Sections 64(2)(m), 351(3), 74, 75(2); POCSO Act - Anticipatory bail application - Application rejected on grounds that delay in lodging FIR does not negate serious allegations including sexual exploitation and indecent photography - Delay cannot be the sole reason for bail grant when strong prima facie case is established. (Paras 18, 20, 23)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory bail principles - Delay in filing FIR does not preclude necessary custodial interrogation or consideration of seriousness of charges, particularly in sexual offenses. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
Application for anticipatory bail filed after complaints of sexual abuse and threats against the applicant regarding a minor relation. The FIR alleges multiple incidents of abuse over eight years prior to lodging - relationships with complainant's family complicate context. (Paras 2, 8, 9)

Findings of Court:
Grounded in necessity for custodial interrogation to recover indecent photographs purportedly taken by the accused - Relationship between applicant and complainant not deemed merely consensual without further investigation into the claims made in FIR. (Paras 22, 23)

Issues: The core issue addressed was whether the nature and gravity of the accusations warranted custodial interrogation and thus denied anticipatory bail despite the claim of previous relationships. (Paras 23, 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while delays in lodging the FIR exist, they do not negate the seriousness of allegations which necessitate custodial investigation for the recovery of evidence, maintaining the standards of evidence and the appropriateness of bail. (Paras 21, 24)

Result: Application for anticipatory bail rejected.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. arguments for granting/denying anticipatory bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. court's reasoning against granting bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

ORDER :

P.M. Raval, J.

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Ambrish V. Jani, upon instructions, states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 2 herein – the original complainant, and that he shall file his Vakalatnama before the Registry. The Registry is directed to accept his Vakalatnama.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni for the applicant. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present application under Section 482 of the BNS S , 2023, seeking anticipatory bail in anticipation of his arrest, pursuant to the FIR being C.R. No. 11195019260104 of 2026 lodged before Deesa Rural Police Station, District Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m), 351(3), 74, and 75(2) of the , as well as under Sections 4 , 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act.

3. The facts of the prosecution, in nutshell, as stated in the FIR, are to the effect that when the prosecutrix was residing at Village Ajapur, Kant, the present applicant, who used to reside behind her residence and belonged to the same community, used to visit their house frequently. Thus, she knew the applicant–accused since childhood.

4. It is further contended that approximately eight years prior to the lodging of the complaint, the father of the present applicant, along with his family, shifted to Gowardhan Park Society at Deesa. However, the accused used to frequently visit the residence of the prosecutrix on various occasions and festivals. The prosecutrix considered him as a brother and also used to tie Rakhi to him.

5. It is further alleged that whenever she was alone at the residence, the accused used to take undue advantage of the situation and used to physically abuse her. When the complainant was studying in Standard 10 in the year 2018, the accused allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her when she was alone at home and also took photographs on his mobile phone.

6. Thereafter, on several occasions, he allegedly threatened the prosecutrix that he would make those photographs viral, and on such threats, he continued to rape her repeatedly. It is further alleged that the accused used to call the victim from mobile numbers 6351047706 and 9924390867, and used to take her to various places in Deesa and commit sexual act upon her despite her resistance.

7. It is further alleged that approximately seven months prior to the lodging of the FIR, the prosecutrix came to know that the accused had also maintained a physical relationship with her elder sister. Upon gaining such knowledge, the prosecutrix informed her father that the accused was not a reliable person, and thereafter the accused stopped visiting their residence.

8. However, on 19.01.2026, the elder sister was also taken away from the residence. Thereafter, she surrendered herself alone at the Police Station on 25.01.2026, and despite the family members requesting her to return home, she refused and is presently residing at the Mahila Kendra.

8.1 Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR came to be lodged. Pursuant thereto, the applicant preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 111 of 2026 before the Special POCSO Court at Deesa for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected by judgment and order dated 21.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa.

9. The present applicant has therefore approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, mainly on the following grounds:

(a) That the present FIR has been lodged with a clear ulterior motive, arising out of personal animosity and frustration due to the breakdown of the relationship with the applicant. It is submitted that the alleged incidents are stated to have tak