Sargam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. Shri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State submits that the notice of the present application has been served upon the opposite party no.2/informant and opposite party no.3/C.W.C. on 16.4.2026. The receiving endorsements produced by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. However, no one appears on behalf of the said opposite parties nor any counter affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

2. Heard counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.336 of 2025, under Sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Saidangali, District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by this Court under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, vide order dated 19.3.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2774 of 2026. After investigation, sections 3/4 of POCSO Act were deleted and sections 5(j)(ii)/6 of POCSO Act have been added. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.11.2025. The First information report was lodged on 28.11.2025. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. As per the ossification test report, the victim was found aged about sixteen years. The range of error in determining the age is about two years and the same should be read in favour of the applicant at this stage. Further, the victim in her statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant and established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 30.11.2025, having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was granted bail by this Court under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, vide order dated 19.3.2026. The victim in her statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. and 183 B.N.S.S. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant and established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault against the applicant. As per the ossification test report the victim was found aged 16 years. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than five months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Sargam involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 7, 2026

Manish Kr