Allahabad High Court
Lalit Kaushik vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:185442
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22212 of 2025
Lalit Kaushik
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Shyam Shanker Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Deelip Kumar Pathak, G.A., Rajiv Kumar Mishra
Court No. - 81
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, learned advocate, holding the brief appeared for the accused-applicant, Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. None appeared for opposite party nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant seeks the intervention of this Court to quash the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.1, Moradabad in Sessions Case No.707 of 2023 (State Vs. Lalit Kaushik), arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2023, under Sections 342, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 5, 6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, whereby the trial court has incorrectly appreciated the facts of the matter and misconstructed the judgment of Supreme Court in Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka AIR (2010) SC 1974. The innocuous prayer through the application is for issuing directions so that the accused may undergo through Narco Analysis Test on his own in his defence evidence invoking Section 315 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Amlesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, of the Supreme Court reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 674 and drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph no.21 of the judgment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below:-
"21. In view of the above exposition in Selvi (Supra), the third question is answered in the following terms:
The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial. However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco-analysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test. We deem it appropriate to reproduce and reiterate the guidelines issued in Selvi (Supra) in this regard as follows:
?265. The National Human Rights Commission had published Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused in 2000. These Guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the ?narcoanalysis technique? and the ?Brain Electrical Activation Profile? test. The text of these Guidelines has been reproduced below:
(i) No lie detector tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.
(ii) If the accused volunteers for a lie detector test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical, emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.
(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.
(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.
(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a ?confessional? statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.
(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
(vii) The actual recording of the lie detector test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.
(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.?
4. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that the trial court has rejected the application on three grounds. First, the investigation was completed; second, the prosecution witnesses have been recorded; and the third, the defence evidence has been completed. He further submits that these are not the grounds which could be the basis to reject the application, which is otherwise tenable in the eye of law.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 is fair enough to concede that there is a law in favour of accused and does not controvert the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.
6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer but could not dispute the aforesaid contention.
7. Considering, that the accused-applicant himself get him to undergo Narco Analysis Test in his defence, in view of the provision of Section 315 Cr.P.C. and there is an observation made by the Supreme Court that the accused, if volunteers to undergo Narco Analysis Test, at an appropriate stage cannot be restricted. The Court cannot deny this right of the accused for fair trial.
8. In such a situation, the impugned order dated 09.06.2025, detailed above is set aside. The trial court may proceed to get the Narco Analysis Test of the accused, in his defence evidence on his own expenses, so that the trial could be concluded at an early date in accordance with the provision of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 9. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly, allowed.
(Avnish Saxena,J.) October 16, 2025 Shivangi