The Gujarat High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 70-year-old man accused of molesting a woman, observing that while his age was a relevant factor however it cannot alone be a ground to grant anticipatory bail when the material collected during investigation prima facie supports the allegations at this stage.

The court was hearing a senior citizen's plea for anticipatory bail, accused of repeatedly molesting a 21-year-old woman and making obscene demands. He was booked under BNS Sections 75(2) (Sexual Harassment) and 78(2) (repeat stalking).

Justice Sanjeev J Thaker in his order said:

"The material collected during investigation shows a sequence of events which cannot be ignored. There was an earlier allegation of molestation. The applicant is stated to have thereafter apologised for the same. Subsequently, on 31.07.2026, when the complainant was alone, the applicant is alleged to have again approached her and made obscene demands. The complainant thereafter informed her family members and subsequently approached the police. The fact that the second incident is alleged to have occurred after the applicant had already apologised for the earlier incident is also relevant.

It is not a case where the present allegation relates only to one incident. The investigation has brought on record the earlier conduct of the applicant, the subsequent apology and the allegation of similar conduct on 31.07.2026. This Court has also considered the age of the applicant. The applicant is 70 years old. His age is certainly a relevant factor. At the same time, the complainant is a 21 year old woman and the allegations concern her being molested and thereafter being subjected to obscene demands. The age of the applicant alone cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail when the material collected during investigation supports the allegations at this stage".

The applicant claimed that he was an old and infirm man of 70 years of age, there is a pre-existing land dispute between the two families, the applicant has been impleaded in the complaint by stating a completely concocted story.

It was submitted that the impugned complaint is a counter-blast to the FIR filed by the wife of the applicant for the grievous injuries sustained by the applicant. He submitted that the applicant is 70 years of age and is physically incapable of the act of overpowering alleged against him. He submitted that the applicant was not present in the village for the whole day. He submitted that the complaint is filed after a delay of two days and there is explanation for the said delay.

The applicant's counsel argued that on the day of the incident the husband and brother in law of the complainant had gone to the residence of the applicant and had assaulted him. It was further submitted that the wife of the applicant has lodged a complaint regarding this incident. On this basis, it was argued that the FIR is a result of the dispute between the families and has been lodged with an ulterior motive.

However State opposed the plea arguing that the applicant had molested the complainant once, had apologized for it and then three months later made obscene demands from her. This fact was supported by witnesses.

The Court said it was not expressing any final opinion on the truth of the allegations but at present the material available on record was sufficient to show that the allegations are required to be investigated in accordance with law.

Finding prima facie case against the applicant the court dismissed the plea.

Case title: GANPATBHAI DAYALJIBHAI PATEL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 19926 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order