Bodily Freedom Recognised Even Within Marital Relationship: Gujarat High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Husband Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Wife
While denying bail to the husband accused of sexually assaulting wife, the High Court observed that modern legal frameworks recognise the bodily autonomy of an individual even within a marital relationship.
Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court, while denying bail to a husband accused of sexually assaulting his wife, held that marriage has historically been perceived as implying automatic sexual consent, but contemporary legal frameworks increasingly recognise the bodily freedom and autonomy of an individual even within a matrimonial relationship.
The High Court observed that intimacy between spouses must be consensual and respectful, and any act contrary to the will of a spouse may have serious legal consequences.
The Court was hearing an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered for offences including cruelty, sexual assault, dowry harassment, and allied offences.
A Bench of Justice Divyesh A. Joshi, while rejecting the application, observed: “No doubt, marriage has been seen as an automatic grant of sexual consent for decades; however, the modern legal frameworks increasingly recognise the bodily freedom of an individual, even within a marital relationship. Intimacy is normal between every married couple; however, the same has to be a consensual and mutually respectful act”.
Background
The prosecution case arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant alleging that she was subjected to physical, mental, and sexual cruelty after marriage. It was alleged that the accused, along with other family members, demanded dowry, subjected her to harassment, and ultimately forced her out of the matrimonial home.
The FIR further alleged acts of sexual abuse and conduct against the will and consent of the complainant during the subsistence of the marriage. Following registration of the FIR, the applicant approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, which was declined, leading to the present application before the High Court.
The applicant contended that the dispute was purely matrimonial in nature, that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and that the allegations were exaggerated and motivated. It was further submitted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation.
The complainant and the State opposed the application, submitting that the allegations were grave, supported by material collected during the investigation, and that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of electronic evidence and other incriminating material.
Court’s Observation
The High Court noted that the FIR and the statements recorded during the investigation disclosed serious allegations of physical and sexual cruelty. It was observed that the nature of allegations went beyond routine matrimonial discord and prima facie indicated sustained abuse.
The Court made observations on the issue of consent within marriage, noting that while marriage has traditionally been viewed as implying sexual access, such a notion is incompatible with contemporary understanding of individual autonomy and dignity. The Court observed that bodily freedom does not cease upon marriage and that any sexual act must be consensual.
The Bench emphasised that “having an unnatural sex by any spouse against the will and wish of the other partner not only causes immense physical pain, but it also gives mental and emotional trauma to the unconsented spouse”.
The Court further noted that the allegations against the applicant were not vague or general in nature and were supported by statements of witnesses and electronic material collected during the investigation. It held that custodial interrogation was required to recover devices, examine digital evidence, and ascertain the full extent of the alleged offences.
Reiterating the principles governing the grant of anticipatory bail, the Court held that while personal liberty is an important consideration, it must be balanced against the seriousness of the allegations, the impact on the victim, and the need for a fair and effective investigation.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations disclosed serious offences warranting custodial interrogation.
Finding no special or compelling circumstances to grant protection, the Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail, while clarifying that the observations made were confined to the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail and would not prejudice the trial or any subsequent bail application.
Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:16)
Appearances
Applicant: Yatin Oza, Senior Advocate, with Aditya A. Gupta, Advocate
Respondents: Soham Joshi, Additional Public Prosecutor, Jal Unwalla, Senior Advocate, with Bomi H. Sethna, Advocate
