The Gujarat High Court denied anticipatory bail to three including a woman over allegations of rape, molestation, physical assault as well as recording the alleged incident on a mobile phone and threatening the victim with the same. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 280]

Accused no. 1 was accused of rape, molestation and physical assault; accused No.2, a woman was accused of restraining the victim, recording the incident and threatening her thereafter; accused no. 3 was accused of demanding physical relations from the victim and threatening her after she refused the same. 

Justice Sanjeev J Thaker in his order, while finding a prima facie case said:

“The dignity of a woman cannot be permitted to be violated by force, threat or fear...

The allegations in the present case concern rape, molestation and threats to the victim. Such acts affect not only the physical safety 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 recorded video. In the present case, the allegation regarding the video is also accompanied by an allegation that it was used to threaten the victim and to compel her to submit to further demands. 
The statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS substantially reiterates the allegations made in the FIR. At this stage, the material on record gives prima facie support to the prosecution case against all three accused. The role attributed to each accused is different, but the allegations against each are specific".

After considering the FIR the court said that allegations were specific against all three accused. It noted that the  allegation against accused No.1 was that he caught hold of the victim while accused No.2 tied both her hands. He thereafter pushed the victim on the bed and demanded physical relations; on refusal, he removed her clothes and committed rape upon her.

It is further alleged that on several occasions, when the victim went with accused No.2 to the field for labour work, accused No.1 used to molest her. The FIR also states that when the victim went to the house of accused No.2 to get milk, accused No.1 used to 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. Thus, the allegation against accused No.1 is of committing rape upon the victim and of repeatedly molesting and physically assaulting her.

"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," the court said.

With respect to the woman accused, i.e., accused no. 2 the court observed that she had allegedly tied the victim's hands during the incident. It was further alleged that she recorded the incident of rape on her mobile phone. She thereafter allegedly told the victim that the incident had been recorded and threatened her that whenever accused No.1 demanded physical relations, she should submit to him. She further threatened that, if the victim refused, the incident would be disclosed to her family and, if she approached the police, the video would be circulated publicly.

It is also alleged that when the victim tried to leave the house of accused No.2, she caught hold of the victim and took her into the room where accused No.1 used to rape her.

"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 recording to threaten her.  It is also relevant that the mobile phone in which accused No.2 is alleged to have recorded the video of the rape is yet to be recovered. The recovery of the mobile phone and examination of the alleged video are relevant parts of the investigation. At this stage, therefore, the investigation concerning this material has not been completed. Considering the specific allegations against accused No.2 and the fact that the mobile phone containing the alleged recording is yet to be recovered, there is prima facie material indicating her involvement in the alleged offences. This Court therefore finds no ground to grant her anticipatory bail," the court said. 

With respect to accused No.3, the husband of accused No.2, it was alleged that when he came into the room, accused No.1 ran away from the place. There was also a specific allegation that accused No.3 demanded physical relations from the victim. When the victim refused,  accused No.3 allegedly threatened her and told her not to disclose the incident to her family.

"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 refused, threatened her," the court said. 

The plea was dismissed.