The Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, has rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by the husband accused in a case involving allegations of dowry harassment, mental and physical cruelty, and serious sexual offences, holding that the accusations were grave in nature and that custodial interrogation was necessary at the present stage of investigation.
The case arose from an FIR registered at the DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad City, on October 14, 2025, alleging that the applicant, along with his parents, subjected the complainant–wife to continuous dowry demands, physical assault, sexual abuse, and mental harassment, eventually forcing her out of the matrimonial home on April 20, 2025. The FIR alleged that the marriage was solemnised on February 5, 2022, and that the complainant was subjected to repeated acts of cruelty over a prolonged period. Apprehending arrest, the applicant approached the High Court after the Sessions Court declined relief.
During the hearing, Justice Divyesh A. Joshi considered the rival submissions. The applicant argued that the dispute was matrimonial in nature, that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, that the allegations were exaggerated and retaliatory to a divorce petition filed earlier, and that he had cooperated with the investigation. It was also contended that the applicant was financially well-settled and that no custodial interrogation was required.
Opposing the plea, the complainant and the State submitted that the allegations went far beyond routine matrimonial discord, involving serious accusations of sexual violence, unnatural sex, dowry harassment, threats, and possession of incriminating electronic evidence and streedhan, which were yet to be recovered. It was contended that anticipatory bail would seriously hamper investigation, particularly recovery of digital devices and personal belongings.
The Court observed that the FIR and the material on record disclosed prima facie serious and grave allegations, including sexual assault within marriage and repeated physical abuse. The Court emphasised that marriage does not imply automatic or irrevocable consent, and that allegations of non-consensual sexual acts and extreme cruelty cannot be treated lightly. Noting that the accusations were supported by witness statements and electronic material, the Court held that the case could not be brushed aside as a mere matrimonial dispute.
Applying the settled principles governing anticipatory bail, including the decisions in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, and Sushila Aggarwal, the Court held that the nature and gravity of the offence, the need for custodial interrogation, and the larger interest of justice outweighed the applicant’s claim for pre-arrest protection. The Court concluded that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would impede effective investigation.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, while clarifying that the observations made were confined to the bail stage and would not prejudice the applicant in any future proceedings, including consideration of regular bail.
Appearances:
For the Applicant – Senior Advocate Yatin Oza, with Advocate Aditya A. Gupta.
For the Respondent – Additional Public Prosecutor Soham Joshi, and Senior Advocate Jal Unwalla, Advocate Bomi H. Sethna.
