Being A Woman Not A Ground For Bail In Heinous Crimes Against Minors: Gujarat High Court Rejects Bail In Flesh Trade Case

"It is needless to say that merely applicant is a lady is not a ground to enlarge her on bail since the applicant though being lady as she is involved in such serious crime that too involving a minor girl aged 10 years and allowed her to be exploited repeatedly." Gujarat High Court, in an order, held that being a woman does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, especially when involved in heinous offences against children.

A bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed that the severity of the crime—pushing a 10-year-old orphan girl into the flesh trade—outweighs any leniency that might ordinarily be extended to a female accused under statutory bail provisions.

The applicant, a woman alleged to be the kingpin of a flesh trade racket, sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The prosecution alleged that the applicant harboured a 10-year-old orphan girl and facilitated her frequent sexual assault by multiple accused persons, leading to the minor becoming pregnant and delivering a child. The applicant had been behind bars since January 2026 and argued for bail on the grounds of her gender and the completion of the investigation.

The primary question before the court was whether a female accused is entitled to regular bail as a matter of right in cases involving severe charges under the POCSO Act and the BNS. The court was also called upon to determine whether the filing of a chargesheet diminishes the severity of the allegations for the purpose of granting bail.

No Leniency Merely For Being A Woman

Addressing the argument advanced by the applicant's counsel, the court firmly rejected the notion that gender could act as an absolute shield against pre-trial detention in grave offences. The bench noted that the applicant, despite being a woman, actively facilitated the repeated sexual exploitation of a highly vulnerable victim. The court stated that the nature of the crime eclipsed any general sympathetic considerations usually afforded to women during bail hearings.

Crime Against The State And Society

The court observed that the applicant was fully aware of the tender age of the victim but still forcefully pushed her into the flesh trade to take undue advantage of her vulnerability. Highlighting the gravity of the allegations, the bench remarked that such exploitation transcends an offence against an individual. The court categorically noted that "the offences alleged are not only against a person but against the State."

Object Of The POCSO Act

Delving into the legislative intent behind the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the court emphasised that every child possesses an inalienable human right to live with dignity and grow in a secure atmosphere. The bench underscored that the statute aims to protect vulnerable citizens from horrifying physical and sexual abuse.

"Yet, a society’s commitment to such a cause does not cease by mere enactment of any law, but its willingness, and those governing and administering it, to create and ensure effective overall frameworks which support and strengthen its institutions."

Filing Of Chargesheet Does Not Lessen Allegations

The court dismissed the applicant's submission that bail should be granted because the chargesheet had already been filed and no further recovery was required. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Virupakshappa Gouda vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 5 SCC 406, the bench reiterated that the filing of a chargesheet establishes that the investigating agency has found sufficient material. The court affirmed that "allegations made by the prosecution have not lessen in any manner" post-chargesheet.

Statutory Presumptions And Risk Of Tampering

The bench highlighted that proceedings under the POCSO Act are governed by the strict statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. While acknowledging that the fundamental concept of bail is preventive and not punitive, the court stressed its duty to safeguard the integrity of the trial. The bench concluded that releasing the applicant could lead to the tampering of evidence and pose a flight risk, thereby jeopardising the interest of prosecution witnesses.

The High Court dismissed the bail application, finding no fit case to exercise its discretion under Section 483 of the BNSS. However, considering the applicant's status as an under-trial prisoner, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings independently and without being influenced by the observations made in the bail order.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026