ARUN KASHYAPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23573 of 2025

Arun Kashyap
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Puneet Kumar Shukla, Sarvind Kumar
                                Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Digvijay Singh, G.A., Jaideep Kumar
                                Singh, Sudhir Kumar Singh

Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 132 out of 277)

                           HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. As informed by learned State Law Officer, notice to
the informant has been served on 27.6.2025.

2. Heard Sri Sarvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as
well as Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material
placed on record. None is present on behalf of the informant.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 413 of 2025, under Sections 70(2)
BNS and 5g/6 POCSO Act, 3(2)(V), 3(1)D, 3(1)DH SC/ST (P.A.) Act,
Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
statement of the victim is vacillating at the time of recording of her
statement u/s 183 BNSS, as such, the story cannot be believed. The applicant
has simply been made an accused on account of his friendship with the main
accused person Anuj.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
11.5.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
                                                               BAIL No. 23573 of 2025
                                   2


6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
but could not dispute the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant.

7. The allegations of applicant having rendered her unconscious by putting
clothes on her face cannot be relied 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. …………”

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the vacillating statement of the victim at the time of recording
of her statement u/s 183 BNSS 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.

9. Let the applicant- Arun Kashyap, 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 verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 23573 of 2025
                                                                    3


                                    10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    11. 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.



                                                                                              (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Shalini




Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad