The applicant, Solanki Ankuben Jitendrakumar, sought regular bail after the filing of a charge‑sheet in connection with allegations that she forced a ten‑year‑old girl into sexual relations with multiple men and facilitated the minor’s involvement in what the prosecution described as flesh trade. The First Information Report was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, namely Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 87 and 54, together with Sections 5(j)(2), 5(l), 6, 12 and 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The charge‑sheet also implicated a juvenile who, according to the prosecution, was induced by the applicant to marry the victim and subsequently engaged in physical relations with her, resulting in the minor’s pregnancy and the birth of a female child.

Arguments Advanced by the Applicant

Through counsel, the applicant contended that she was innocent and falsely implicated. It was submitted that the charge‑sheet had already been filed, no further recovery or discovery was required from her, and her alleged role was limited to harbouring and facilitating the offence. On that basis, she urged the court to grant bail.

Court’s Examination of the Material

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, delivering the order, observed that the investigating agency had collected sufficient material, including the statement of the minor victim recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad. The statement, according to the court, clearly depicted the applicant’s involvement in calling the accused persons to her residence with the intent to develop physical relations with the minor and in sending the child to the homes of those persons as part of the alleged flesh trade.

The court noted that the applicant, being fully aware of the victim’s tender age, allegedly forced the girl into sexual exploitation and took undue advantage of her youth. On the basis of the collected evidence, the court held that a prima facie case against the applicant was made out.

Consideration of Bail Grounds

The applicant’s reliance on her gender as a ground for release was expressly rejected. The court held that merely being a lady does not constitute a valid reason to enlarge an accused on bail, especially when the alleged conduct involves a serious crime against a minor.

Furthermore, the court considered the interests of the prosecution. It observed that if the applicant were released on bail, there existed a risk of her misusing liberty to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, or abscond. The possibility of such misuse could not be ruled out, and therefore the bail plea was not favoured.

Operative Outcome

After weighing the allegations, the evidentiary material, and the prosecutorial interests, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the regular bail application. The applicant remains in judicial custody pending trial.

The matter is listed as Criminal Miscellaneous Application (For Regular Bail – After Charge‑sheet) No. 9609 of 2026, titled Solanki Ankuben Jitendrakumar v/s State of Gujarat & Anr. The order cites 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 199.