The Gujarat High Court has denied anticipatory bail to three accused, including a woman, in a case that involves allegations of rape, repeated molestion, and threats made to the victim, including recording the incident on a mobile phone to blackmail her. The court, in its order, emphasized that the dignity of a woman cannot be violated by force, threat or fear. The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker on October 8, 2026.

The FIR was registered at Babra Police Station in Amreli district under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, including Section 64(2)(m) (rape), 75(2) (molestation), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 54 (abatement). The victim, a 25-year-old daily wager laborer, alleged that the accused, who were neighbors, took advantage of her financial vulnerability and committed the offens over multiple occasions. The incident was recorded on a mobile phone, which was used to threaten and control her.

Allegations of Rape and Video Blackmail

According to the FIR, accused No.1, Rajeshbhai @ Valku Devchandbhai Jiyani, allegedly caught hold of the victim while accused No.2 tied her hands. He then pushed her onto the bed and, after her refual, removed her clothes and committed rape. The FIR also states that on several occasions when the victim went with accused No.2 to the field for labor work, accused No.1 would moler her. When the victim visited the house of accused No.2 to get milk, accused No.1 would take her in his arms, kiss her, touch her private parts, and physically assault her. When the victim tried to escape, accused No.2 allegedly caught her and took her into the room where accused No.1 used to rape her.

Accused No.2 is also recorded the entire incident on her mobile phone. After the incident, she told the victim that the video had been recorded and thread that whenever accused No.1 demanded physical relations, she should submit herself. She further warned that if the victim refued or approached the police, the video would be circulated publicly.

Accused No.3, the husband of accused No.2, allegedly came into the room when accused No.1 was present, and accused No.1 fled. Accused No.3 then demanded physical relations from the victim. Upon her refual, he thread her and instructed her not to disclose the incident to her family.

Active Involvement of All Three Accused

The court noted that the allegations were specific against each accused and not general in nature. The role attributed to each was different. The court observed that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against all three. Specifically, for accused No.1: "The allegations are specific and serious. The material presently available discloses a prima facie case against accused No.1. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and his specific role, he does not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail ."

Regard accused No.2, the court said: "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 recoring to threaten her." The court also noted that the mobile phone containing the alleged video is yet to be recovered, which is a relevant part of the investigation.

For accused No.3, the court found: "The allegation against accused No.3 is therefore distinct. It is not based merely on his relationship with accused No.2 or his presence in the house. A specific allegation has been made that he himself demanded physical relations and, after the victim refued, threatened her."

The court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR—nearly one year after the alleged incident—and the submission of the accused that the relationship was consensual . However, the court found that the victim's statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNS substancially reitered the allegations. The court said: "Such acts affect not only the physical safet of a woman but also her dignity and sense of security. A woman may also face fear and social pressure while disclosing such an incident, particularly when threats are given regarding disclosure to her family or circulation of a recored video."

Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail Citing Prima Facie Case

The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihari (2012) 4 SCC 379, which holds that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has been falsely enroped. The court also relied on Patibha Manchanda vs. State of Haryan (2023) to strike a balance between individual rights and public interest. Additionally, the court referred to Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. (2022), noting that the absence of need for custodial interrogation alone is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail.

The court concluded that the role attributed to each accused requires proper investigation and that the applicants failed to make out a case for anticipatory bail. The application was accordingly rejected, and the rule was discharged.