Allahabad High Court
SARGAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sargam, accused under Sections 137(2), 64, 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act for an alleged incident on 19‑11‑2025. The FIR was lodged on 28‑11‑2025, a delay the court deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. The victim, aged about sixteen, stated she had gone voluntarily with the applicant and there was no allegation of force, leading the court to view her as a consenting party. No corroborative evidence linked the applicant to the offence and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody for over three months. The court found no risk of evidence tampering, flight, or witness intimidation and therefore granted bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a POCSO‑related case where the FIR is delayed and the victim’s statement indicates consent.
- Whether the alleged consent of a minor under the POCSO Act negates the criminal liability.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing if released on bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- POCSO Act
- consent of minor
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- no prior criminal record
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2774 of 2026
Sargam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Santosh Kumar Singh, Vishal
Kumar Sonkar
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, counsel for
the informant as well as Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the
State. Perused the material available on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 336 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 64,
351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station- Saidangali,
District- Amroha, during the pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. 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 conduct of the
victim shows that she was a consenting party. At this stage, there is no
corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant
is in jail since 30.11.2025 having no criminal antecedents and in case he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
BAIL No. 2774 of 2026
2
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged
belatedly. As per the statements of the victim under Section 180 B.N.S.S.
and 183 B.N.S.S., she had gone voluntarily with the applicant and
established relations with him. There is no allegation of any forceful assault
against the applicant. The conduct of the victim shows that she was a
consenting party. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. Moreover, the applicant has no criminal
antecedents and has remained confined for more than three months and after
the 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to
be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Sargam, involved in the aforesaid case 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.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
March 19, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…