Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86310 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10522 of 2025 Applicant :- Sahil Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amul Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Learned State Law Officer has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 3.4.2025. 3. Heard Sri Amul Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.933 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 70(1) B.N.S. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station- Baghpat, District- Baghpat, during the pendency of trial. 5. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted against unknown person by the informant regarding his missing daughter since 30.10.2024 at 02:00 p.m. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The FIR is delayed by about seven days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the victim by her looks seems to be major, although she is stated to be 17 years old as per the ossification test report, as such, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on the upper side. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up for the first time in the statement of the victim recorded U/s 180 & 183 B.N.S.S. 8. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the said prosecution story that the victim was rendered unconscious by forcing her to inhale some obnoxious material and was taken on a motorcycle to Punjab cannot be taken into consideration in the light of observations 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 there is no medical corroboration of the incident. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 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. The Supreme Court in Jaya Mala vs. State of J & K, (1982) 2 SCC 538 and Mohd. Imran Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2011) 10 SCC 192 has opined that the radiologist cannot predict the correct date of birth rather there is a long margin of 1 to 2 years on either side. 12. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR coupled by the fact that applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no medical corroboration of the incident, 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. 14. Let the applicant- Sahil, 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 during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. 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 :- 21.5.2025 Vikas (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad