Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61476 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9792 of 2025 Applicant :- Chotu @ Chhotey Lal Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava,Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. The ossification test report of the victim has been received, which indicates the age of the victim to be 16 years. The original ossification test report shall be returned to the office of CMO concerned, after retaining photostat copy of the same on record. 3. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 17.3.2025. 4. Heard Sri Kumar Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.473 of 2024, under Sections 76, 64 B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Salempur, District- Deoria, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant that applicant is used to outraging the modesty of the victim every now and then and also subjects her to sexual harassment. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR was instituted regarding outraging the modesty only and no date and time of offence is mentioned in it. The statement of victim was recorded U/s 183 B.N.S.S., whereby she has stated that applicant and co- accused person Vishal had met her at the house of her friend, whereby co-accused person Vishal forced her into a room and had taken certain photographs and kissed her, and subsequently, he rendered her unconscious and she gain consciousness after ten minutes and found her clothes unbuttoned and felt wet on her vital parts. The said statement cannot be believed. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed much reliance on the observations made in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, Twenty-Second Edition (Student Edition) at page 511, which is being reproduced as under: “……………… Concerning the administration of an anaesthetic drug, such as chloroform, it must be remembered that it is impossible to anaesthetise a woman against her will while she is awake. Even a skilled anaesthetist requires the help of one or two assistants to hold a patient forcibly down on the operating table during the first stage of anaesthesia, although the patient voluntarily inhales it for an operation. It is also impossible for an inexperienced man to anaesthetise a sleeping person without disturbance, so as to substitute artificial sleep for natural sleep. Hence the story often published in the lay press of a woman having been rendered suddenly unconscious by a handkerchief soaked in chloroform held over her face and then raped is not to be believed. It must be borne in mind that a woman, especially of an excitable and emotional temperament, during the stage of anaesthesia, might get a dream or hallucination that she has been raped, and may insist on the belief after the effects of anaesthesia have passed off, so that she brings an accusation of violation against her medical attendant. …………” 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although as per the ossification test report her age has come out to be 16 years, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. There is no criminal antecedent of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 8.1.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 10. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 11. In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the observations in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology and also that victim is 16 years old as per ossification test report coupled with the fact that there is no medical corroboration of the incident and the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant- Chotu @ Chhotey Lal Chauhan, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 15. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad