# The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr

- **Citation:** 2026 INSC 47
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2026-01-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-anurudh-anr-39128
- **Pages:** 51

## Headnote

Whether u/s.439, CrPC the High Court could have issued directions,
mandating age determination test to be conducted in all cases
involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involves twin
considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the
aspect of law i.e., the postulate of the act regarding determination
of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned judgement
correspond to or are in contravention of the same.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.363, 366 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 - ss.7 and 8 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)
Act 2015 - s.94 - Allegation of the mother of victim that her
12 year old girl was abducted from her home - Respondent
no.1 is the accused person - Bail rejected by the trial Court -
However, the High Court directed to constitute a medical board
for determination of the age of the victim and then released
the accused on interim bail - The High Court also issued
directions mandating age determination test to be conducted
in all cases involving the POCSO Act - Correctness:
Held: The High Court in bail jurisdiction was coram non judice
for issuing directions mandating the investigating authorities
within the State of Uttar Pradesh to necessarily have a medical
examination of the victim conducted, with the particular intent to
determine the age of the victim as also holding, that a bail Court
would be empowered to entertain challenges to the documents
produced to establish the age of the victim - The Court could not
have passed directions that go against clearly stated legislative
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
771
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
intent u/s.94 of the JJ Act - The determination of the age of the
victim is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded
to the documents enumerated under the Section, has to be
rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the
bail Court - If the question of age is raised at the stage of bail, it
is only open for the Court to, from the perusal of the documents,
take a prima facie view as to the age of the victim, not one on
the correctness of the documents since that would amount to a
mini trial - It could also not have fused statutory jurisdiction with
a constitutional one, lifting one to the other, or downgrading the
higher to the lower in order to grant itself the wherewithal, in an
otherwise fairly circumscribed jurisdiction, to do what could not be
done - The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and
thereby lacking the appropriate directions. [Paras 18, 19]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Jurisdiction of the
Court of Sessions or the High Court - Whether, in the instant
case, the High Court erred in undertaking an exercise of issuing
directions and getting the age of the victim examined in an
application seeking grant of bail:
Held: A Court's jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or the
High Court u/s.439 CrPC is limited to adjudicating the question of
the person concerned being released into society pending trial or
whether they should continue to be incarcerated - In the instant
case the error of jurisdiction by the High Court was in exercise of
a statutory power and not under the Constitution - The powers
arising from the Constitution and those flowing from a statute are
distinct and separate - On the aspect of jurisdiction, the High Court
had erred in undertaking such an exercise of issuing directions
and getting the age of the victim examined in an application
seeking grant of bail - As far as determining the age of the victim
is concerned, it is settled that it is a matter of trial and not at the
stage of bail - If the age is under question, the bail Court may
examine the documents produced to establish age, but it will
not enter into the question of those documents being correct or
not so - The mandate of s.94 JJ A

## Text

_Characters 0–38,367 of 102,349. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38367 for what follows._

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 770 : 2026 INSC 47
The State of Uttar Pradesh
v.
Anurudh & Anr
(Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2026)
09 January 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether u/s.439, CrPC the High Court could have issued directions,
mandating age determination test to be conducted in all cases
involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involves twin
considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the
aspect of law i.e., the postulate of the act regarding determination
of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned judgement
correspond to or are in contravention of the same.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.363, 366 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 - ss.7 and 8 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)
Act 2015 - s.94 - Allegation of the mother of victim that her
12 year old girl was abducted from her home - Respondent
no.1 is the accused person - Bail rejected by the trial Court -
However, the High Court directed to constitute a medical board
for determination of the age of the victim and then released
the accused on interim bail - The High Court also issued
directions mandating age determination test to be conducted
in all cases involving the POCSO Act - Correctness:
Held: The High Court in bail jurisdiction was coram non judice
for issuing directions mandating the investigating authorities
within the State of Uttar Pradesh to necessarily have a medical
examination of the victim conducted, with the particular intent to
determine the age of the victim as also holding, that a bail Court
would be empowered to entertain challenges to the documents
produced to establish the age of the victim - The Court could not
have passed directions that go against clearly stated legislative
* Author
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
771
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
intent u/s.94 of the JJ Act - The determination of the age of the
victim is a matter for trial, and the presumption which is accorded
to the documents enumerated under the Section, has to be
rebutted there, for that is the appropriate forum to do so, not the
bail Court - If the question of age is raised at the stage of bail, it
is only open for the Court to, from the perusal of the documents,
take a prima facie view as to the age of the victim, not one on
the correctness of the documents since that would amount to a
mini trial - It could also not have fused statutory jurisdiction with
a constitutional one, lifting one to the other, or downgrading the
higher to the lower in order to grant itself the wherewithal, in an
otherwise fairly circumscribed jurisdiction, to do what could not be
done - The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set
aside on grounds of transgression of the jurisdiction present and
thereby lacking the appropriate directions. [Paras 18, 19]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Jurisdiction of the
Court of Sessions or the High Court - Whether, in the instant
case, the High Court erred in undertaking an exercise of issuing
directions and getting the age of the victim examined in an
application seeking grant of bail:
Held: A Court's jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or the
High Court u/s.439 CrPC is limited to adjudicating the question of
the person concerned being released into society pending trial or
whether they should continue to be incarcerated - In the instant
case the error of jurisdiction by the High Court was in exercise of
a statutory power and not under the Constitution - The powers
arising from the Constitution and those flowing from a statute are
distinct and separate - On the aspect of jurisdiction, the High Court
had erred in undertaking such an exercise of issuing directions
and getting the age of the victim examined in an application
seeking grant of bail - As far as determining the age of the victim
is concerned, it is settled that it is a matter of trial and not at the
stage of bail - If the age is under question, the bail Court may
examine the documents produced to establish age, but it will
not enter into the question of those documents being correct or
not so - The mandate of s.94 JJ Act is clear - The documents
provided therein are to be utilized for determination of the age of
the victim, and only in the absence thereof, will medical evidence
be resorted. [Para 16]
772
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 - s.94 -
Consideration of documents enumerated in s.94 - Whether
the High Court, in the instant case, fell in error in holding
that a Court in bail jurisdiction is empowered to entertain a
challenge to the documents at bail stage:
Held: The consideration of the documents enumerated in s.94,
JJ Act is a matter of consideration of evidence since it may
involve the examination of witnesses to prove the veracity of the
documents - That can only be done by the Trial Court - Contra
evidence to challenge the documents, can also be presented only
before the Trial Court - In considered view of this Court, therefore,
the High Court fell in error in holding that a Court in bail jurisdiction
is empowered to entertain a challenge to the documents as s.94
would not apply at the bail stage. [Para 14.10]
Bail - Mini Trial - Impermissible at the stage of Bail:
Held: Its trite in law that a Court, at the stage of bail cannot conduct
a mini trial - s.439 is limited to granting bail or anticipatory bail
and requires the Court to consider only prima facie evidence, the
risk of the accused absconding, tampering with evidence, or other
relevant factors - Since s.439 is narrower in scope, the Court
cannot undertake a mini trial at the bail stage. [Para 15.3]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 - s.94 -
Medically Determining the Age of the Victim:
Held: A medical determination of age of a victim cannot be resorted
to as a matter of course, much less mandated - It can only be
employed in a given circumstance when the other stipulations of
s.94 JJ Act are not/cannot be met. [Para 17]
Constitutional Power - Statutory power - High Court -
Distinction between Constitutional Power and Statutory power:
Held: Constitutional powers are sovereign, foundational, and
insulated from the vicissitudes of ordinary legislation; they can
neither be curtailed nor expanded by parliamentary enactment -
Statutory powers, by contrast, are subordinate and mutable,
existing at the pleasure of the Legislature, which may at any time
amend, restrict, or repeal them through the ordinary legislative
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
773
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
process - Judicial review, while applicable to both, assumes different
contours in each case: in relation to constitutional powers, the
Courts examine whether their exercise conforms to constitutional
limitations including the protection of fundamental rights and the
inviolable tenets of the basic structure whereas, in the case of
statutory powers, the inquiry is confined to whether the authority
has acted within the scope and purpose of the statute from which
its power is drawn - The constitutional power cannot overshadow
the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been
envisaged by the statute - In other words, while both powers rest
with the High Court, one power cannot usurp the ambit of another,
unless otherwise permitted by law. [Para 11.3]
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015 - Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Difference
between - Discussed. [Paras 14.5.1-14.5.4]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Misrepresentation of age of victim - Law used by families
in opposition to relationships between young people -
Consenting adolescence - Discussed. [Para 19]
Professional Ethics - Bar - Responsibility of advocates -
Consensual relationships between teenagers - Exercise of
restraint, when grievance masks vengeance - Discussed.
[Para 19]
Judicial Notice - Misuse of POCSO Act - Consideration for
introduction of a Romeo-Juliet clause - Discussed. [Para 19]
Case Law Cited
State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi [2005] Supp. 3 SCR 454 : (2005)
8 SCC 21; Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan [2008] 17
SCR 369 : (2009) 2 SCC 281; RBI v. Coop. Bank Deposit A/C
HR. Sha [2010] 9 SCR 1107 : (2010) 15 SCC 85; Just Rights for
Children Alliance v. S. Harish [2024] 10 SCR 154 : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2611; Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2013] 8 SCR
1044 : (2013) 7 SCC 263; Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam Hossain v.
State of West Bengal [2012] 9 SCR 244 : (2012) 10 SCC 489;
Parag Bhati (Juvenile) through Legal Guardian-Mother-Rajni
Bhati v. State of U.P. [2016] 2 SCR 1089 : (2016) 12 SCC 744;
Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P. [2021] 12 SCR 502 : (2022)
8 SCC 602 - relied on.
774
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [2019] 9 SCR 735 : (2019)
12 SCC 370; Mukarrab v. State of U.P. [2016] 8 SCR 557 : (2017)
2 SCC 210; State v. M. Murugesan [2020] 2 SCR 553 : (2020) 15
SCC 251; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar [2011]
15 SCR 540 : (2011) 14 SCC 770; Sangitaben Shaileshbhai
Datanta v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522; Union of India v.
Man Singh Verma [2025] 2 SCR 1534 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
456; Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra [2013] 17 SCR 667 : (2013)
14 SCC 637; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 :
(2021) 3 SCC 713; Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2025] 7 SCR
394 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1326; P. Yuvaprakash v. State [2023]
10 SCR 478 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846; Rajni v. State of UP,
2025 INSC 737; Rajesh Chaddha v. State of U.P [2025] 6 SCR
382 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1094 - referred to.
Pradeep Kumar Chauhan & Anr. v. State Of U.P & Ors., Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition No. 733 of 2020; Chandrapal Singh v. State
of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 934; Satish alias Chand v. State of
U.P., Crl.Misc.Bail Appl.No.18596 of 2024; Aman@Vansh v. State
of UP, 2024:AHC:62260; Monish v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:32270;
Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P., 2023:AHC:204171;
Sahil v. the State NCT of Delhi, 2024:DHC:6100; Jayantibhai
Babulbhai Alani v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC Online Guj. 1223 -
referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection) Act 2015; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Rules, 2007; Constitution of India; Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
List of Keywords
Section 439 of CrPC; Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act 2015; Constitutional Power; Statutory power;
Determination of age of victim; Coram Non Judice; Mini-Trial;
Ossification Test; Section 34 of the POCSO Act; Consensual
Adolescent Relationships; Bail; Jurisdiction; Age of victim; Statutory
jurisdiction; Circumscribed jurisdiction; Prima facie evidence;
Documents; Jurisdictional question; Judicial review; Professional
Ethics; Bar; Responsibility of advocates; Romeo - Juliet clause.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
775
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
163 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMBA No. 4880 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Ruchira Goel, Sharanya, Ms. Veera Mahuli, Ms. Ritika Rao.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
D.S. Parmar, Saurabh Singh, Vedant Tiwari, Ms. Shambhavi
Shrivastava, Ms. Archana.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
For ease of reference, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
Contents*
The Appeal .......................................................................................
3
Facts And Previous Proceedings .....................................................
4
The Impugned Judgment ................................................................
5
Question To Be Determined ............................................................
8
Analysis And Determination .............................................................
8
Relevant Provisions .........................................................................
9
What were the bases for the High Court's Conclusions and
Directions? ....................................................................................... 12
The Jurisdictional Question ............................................................. 20
Whether the impugned directions rest on sound legal grounds? ... 29
Determination of the age of the victim - At what stage and by
whom ....................................................................................... 31
Mini Trial- Impermissible at the stage of Bail .........................
50
Medically Determining the Age of the Victim .......................... 51
Summation ....................................................................................... 58
A Necessitated Post-Script ............................................................... 60
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
776
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Sanjay Karol, J.
Leave Granted.
The Appeal
2.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, in this appeal by special leave, challenges
the correctness of final judgment and order dated 29th May 2024 in
CRMBA No. 4880 of 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad, whereby the learned Single Judge granted bail to
Respondent No.1 in connection with the First Information Report1
No.622 of 2022, PS Kotwali, Orai, District Jalaun, dated 24th November
2022 and issued a number of directions.
3.
The question presented in this appeal, however, is not one of relative
ease as an appeal against grant of bail and instead hinges on the
scope of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732. In
the High Court's own words- "The question of law which arises for
consideration in this bail application is the nature of the legal duty
cast on the police to draw up a medical report determining the age
of a victim while investigating POCSO Act offences. The jurisdiction
of this Court to determine this question will predicate the discussion
on the merits of the bail."
Facts And Previous Proceedings
4.
The facts, in a nutshell, are that Respondent no. 1 is accused of
having committed offences under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian
Penal Code, 18603 and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 20124 in the subject FIR, lodged at the
instance of the mother of the victim, where the allegation is that her
12-year old girl had been abducted from her home. The Trial Court
rejected bail by order dated 29th September 2023. In the proceedings
for bail before the High Court, by order dated 22nd April 2024 the
Chief Medical Officer, Jalaun was directed to constitute a medical
board for determination of the age of the victim. On 8th May 2024
the Court then released the accused on interim bail, observing that
1
FIR
2
CrPC
3
IPC
4
POCSO Act
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
777
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
there was wide inconsistency in the age of the victim as in the school
records, or as stated by her in her statement under Sections 161
and 164 CrPC regarding age/intimacy with the accused among other
factors. In terms of the impugned judgment, the Court confirmed the
said order, while adjudicating on the issue indicated above.
The Impugned Judgment
5.
The observations of the High Court can be summarised thus:
5.1 The Court began by affirming that the jurisdiction exercised
under Section 439 CrPC engages constitutional protection under
Article 21. The right to bail has evolved beyond a purely statutory
entitlement into a constitutionally safeguarded right. On this
basis, the Court reiterated that when issues affecting personal
liberty arise, such as legality of investigative procedures, they
must be addressed directly within bail adjudication.
5.2 In assessing the age of the victim, the Court evaluated prior
precedents of the High Court which collectively prescribe
that medical determination of age under Section 164-A CrPC
read with Section 27 POCSO Act is mandatory and is often
a more reliable indicator than documentary entries. Reliance
on Pradeep Kumar Chauhan & Anr. v. State Of U.P & Ors.5
(passed by a learned Single Judge of that High Court) is rejected
as misplaced due to its habeas corpus context and its nonexamination of statutory medical-age provisions.
5.3 The statutory scheme was analysed to conclude that Sections
164-A CrPC and 27 POCSO Act obligate police to obtain
the victim's medical age report at the commencement of
investigation. Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act 20156 supplements this mechanism. Failure to
secure such a report rendered the statutory framework futile and
opens scope for false implication via manipulated age claims.
5.4 On the factual matrix, the Court noted recurring systemic lapses
wherein the police failed to obtain medical age reports, Trial
Courts ignored scientifically assessed age, and consensual
5
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 733 of 2020
6
JJ Act
778
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
adolescent relationships were criminalised under the POCSO
Act due to falsified age records. This systemic malfunction,
according to the Court, necessitated corrective judicial directives.
5.5 Finally, applying law to fact, the Court accepted the medically
determined age of the prosecutrix as above 18 years and
consequently, allowed bail subject to conditions.
5.6 The directions issued are extracted in toto, as under:
"I) The police authorities/investigation officers shall
ensure compliance of the directions rendered by
this Court in Aman (supra) and ensure that the
medical report determining the age of the victim is
drawn up by the competent medical authority at the
commencement of the investigations of POCSO
Act offences in accordance with the provisions of
the Section 164-A CrPC read with Section 27 of the
POCSO Act.
II) The medical report of the victim determining her
age and drawn up under Section 164-A CrPC. read
with Section 27 of the POCSO Act shall be produced
by the police authorities/investigation officers before
the court hearing the bail application. The learned
courts while hearing bail applications shall make due
enquiries about the compliance of these directions
and Aman (supra) during the bail proceedings.
III) The judgement of this Court rendered in Monish
(supra), Aman (supra) as well as this case have to
be read together and not in isolation. The directions
in Aman (supra) as well as this case will be of little
avail, if not examined and implemented in light of the
directions made in Monish (supra).
IV) The age of the victim in bails arising out of POCSO
Act offences has been determined by a composite
reading of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act and Section 164-A
of CrPC. read with Section 27 of the POCSO Act in
light of the judgements rendered in Monish (supra),
Aman (supra) and this case.
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
779
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
V) The court hearing the bail application has to accord
full weight to the medical age determination report
of the victim and also carefully examine all other
documents relating to the victim's age. The court
has to determine the credibility of the respective
age related documents while deciding the bail
application in the facts of the case. In appropriate
facts and circumstances as in the instant case, the
age determined by the competent medical authority
under Section 164-A of CrPC. read with Section 27
of the POCSO Act can prevail over other agerelated
documents (including school records)."
Question To Be Determined
6.
The question that this Court is called upon to consider is whether
under Section 439, CrPC the High Court could have issued
directions, mandating age determination test to be conducted in all
cases involving the POCSO Act. This larger question involves twin
considerations, one on the aspect of jurisdiction and the other on the
aspect of law i.e., the postulate of the act regarding determination
of age, and how the directions issued in the impugned judgement
correspond to or are in contravention of the same.
Analysis And Determination
7.
We have heard the learned senior counsel and learned counsel for
the parties.
Relevant Provisions
8.
Before proceeding further, the provisions of law involved in this
appeal must be referred to.
8.1 Section 27 of the POCSO Act
"27. Medical examination of a child.-(1) The medical
examination of a child in respect of whom any
offence has been committed under this Act, shall,
notwithstanding that a First Information Report or
complaint has not been registered for the offences
under this Act, be conducted in accordance with
780
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1973).
(2) In case the victim is a girl child, the medical
examination shall be conducted by a woman doctor.
(3) The medical examination shall be conducted in
the presence of the parent of the child or any other
person in whom the child reposes trust or confidence.
(4) Where, in case the parent of the child or other
person referred to in sub-section (3) cannot be present,
for any reason, during the medical examination of the
child, the medical examination shall be conducted in
the presence of a woman nominated by the head of
the medical institution."
(emphasis supplied)
8.2 Section 164 of the CrPC
"[164A. Medical examination of the victim of rape.-
(1) Where, during the stage when an offence of
committing rape or attempt to commit rape is under
investigation, it is proposed to get the person of the
woman with whom rape is alleged or attempted to
have been committed or attempted, examined by a
medical expert, such examination shall be conducted
by a registered medical practitioner employed in a
hospital run by the Government or a local authority
and in the absence of such a practitioner, by any other
registered medical practitioner, with the consent of
such woman or of a person competent to give such
consent on her behalf and such woman shall be sent
to such registered medical practitioner within twentyfour hours from the time of receiving the information
relating to the commission of such offence.
(2) The registered medical practitioner, to whom
such woman is sent, shall, without delay, examine
her person and prepare a report of his examination
giving the following particulars, namely:-
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
781
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
(i) the name and address of the woman and
of the person by whom she was brought;
(ii) the age of the woman;
(iii) the description of material taken from
the person of the woman for DNA profiling;
(iv) marks of injury, if any, on the person
of the woman;
(v) general mental condition of the woman;
and
(vi) other material particulars in reasonable
detail.
(3) The report shall state precisely the reasons for
each conclusion arrived at.
(4) The report shall specifically record that the consent
of the woman or of the person competent to give
such consent on her behalf to such examination had
been obtained.
(5) The exact time of commencement and completion
of the examination shall also be noted in the
report.
(6) The registered medical practitioner shall, without
delay forward the report to the investigating officer
who shall forward it to the Magistrate referred to in
section 173 as part of the documents referred to in
clause (a) of sub-section (5) of that section.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed as
rendering lawful any examination without the consent
of the woman or of any person competent to give
such consent on her behalf. Explanation.-For
the purposes of this section, "examination" and
"registered medical practitioner" shall have the same
meanings as in section 53.]"
(emphasis supplied)
782
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8.3 Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act 2015
"94. (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or
the Board, based on the appearance of the person
brought before it under any of the provisions of this
Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence)
that the said person is a child, the Committee or the
Board shall record such observation stating the age
of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with
the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the
case may be, without waiting for further confirmation
of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has
reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether
the person brought before it is a child or not, the
Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall
undertake the process of age determination, by
seeking evidence by obtaining -
(i)
the date of birth certificate from
the school, or the matriculation
or equivalent certificate from the
concerned examination Board, if
available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii)
the birth certificate given by a
corporation or a municipal authority
or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and
(ii) above, age shall be determined
by an ossification test or any other
latest medical age determination
test conducted on the orders of the
Committee or the Board: Provided
such age determination test conducted
on the order of the Committee or the
Board shall be completed within fifteen
days from the date of such order.
(3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board
to be the age of person so brought before it shall,
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
783
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true
age of that person.
(emphasis supplied)
8.4 Section 29 of the POCSO Act
"29. Presumption as to certain offences.-Where a
person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or
attempting to commit any offence under sections 3,
5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall
presume, that such person has committed or abetted
or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may
be unless the contrary is proved."
What were the bases for the High Court's Conclusions and
Directions?
9.
Although we have, in earlier paragraphs of this judgement, summarised
the reasoning of the High Court, let us now unpack the same with
reference to the earlier judgements of the Court in Aman@Vansh v.
State of UP7 and Monish v. State of U.P8. Both these judgments
as also the judgment impugned before us, have been passed by the
very same learned Single Judge. Since Monish (supra) was earlier
in point of time, we will take that up first.
9.1 The learned Single Judge in Monish (supra) held in substance,
as follows:
The Court examined two key questions of law: (i) whether the
age of a victim under the POCSO Act should be determined as
per Section 94 of JJ Act at the stage of bail, and (ii) whether
the presumption of culpable intent under Section 29 of the
POCSO Act applies at that stage. After extensive review, the
Court held that Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 which prescribes
a conclusive method for age determination does not apply
strictly to bail proceedings. Instead, the documents enumerated
in Section 94 (such as school certificates or birth certificates)
may be considered as evidence, but their correctness can
7
2024:AHC:62260
8
2023:AHC:32270
784
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
be challenged by the accused at the bail stage. The Court
emphasized that such an assessment of age during bail
proceedings is tentative, meant only for evaluating the prima
facie case and not conclusive for trial purposes.
The High Court had examined and synthesized the leading
authorities of this Court, including Abuzar Hossain @ Gulam
Hossain v. State of West Bengal9; Parag Bhati (Juvenile)
through Legal Guardian-Mother-Rajni Bhati v. State of
U.P.10; Sanjeev Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.11; Rishipal Singh
Solanki v. State of U.P.12; and Mukarrab v. State of U.P.13. The
collective import of these judgments is that the presumption of
correctness attached to age-related documents under Section
94 of JJ Act, is not absolute but rebuttable, and that a Court
may consider other credible materials or order further inquiry,
whenever contradictions or doubts arise about the recorded
age. The Court further observed that accused persons have
the right to question the veracity of age-related documents
relied on by the prosecution. It clarified that bail courts must
independently assess the credibility of such documents and
may consider corroborative materials like medical reports or
other records to resolve doubts regarding the victim's age. The
Court frowned upon a rigid or formulaic approach to bail under
the POCSO Act, stressing that decisions must be based on the
specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Regarding the presumption of culpable intent under Section 29
of the POCSO Act, the Court held that such presumption does
not apply at the pre-trial bail stage. The presumption becomes
operative only once the trial begins and foundational facts are
established through evidence. The right of the accused to contest
this presumption and present a defence cannot be curtailed
at the bail stage. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional and
evidentiary principles must govern bail decisions, ensuring
fairness and due process.
9
(2012) 10 SCC 489
10
(2016) 12 SCC 744
11
(2019) 12 SCC 370
12
(2022) 8 SCC 602
13
(2017) 2 SCC 210
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
785
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
From a constitutional perspective, the Court reiterated that
grant of bail is the rule and refusal the exception, aligning with
settled principles under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It
noted that while the POCSO Act is a special statute aimed at
protecting minors, it does not exclude the operation of standard
bail principles under Section 439 CrPC. The Court, therefore,
emphasized judicial discretion, proportionality, and individual
case assessment as central to deciding bail. The Court held:
"78. The discussion then proceeded to probe the
effect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India on the
offending provisions for grant of bail. This enquiry
was overlaid with a consideration of authorities "on
the concept of due process in our constitutional
jurisprudence whenever the court has to deal with a
question affecting life and liberty of citizens".
...
85. In view of the constitutional moorings of the right of
bail, curtailment of the said right cannot be permitted in
absence of an express statutory mandate or contrary
to the constitutional scheme. Nor can restrictions of
on right of bail be readily inferred from a statute if
other interpretations are possible."
The Court also discussed parameters of bail under the POCSO
Act, holding that the nature and gravity of the offence, likelihood
of conviction, chances of tampering with evidence, or absconding
must be assessed in the light of constitutional protections. No
additional restrictions on bail can be read into the POCSO Act
beyond those under the general law. It was observed:
"88. Bails under POCSO Act offences have to
be considered under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and in
accordance with the settled parameters of grant of
bail which include nature and gravity of the offences,
and the likelihood of an accused having committed the
offence. The possibility of the accused reoffending,
influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence
or being a flight risk are also relevant factors to be
considered while deciding a bail application.
786
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
89. In POCSO Act related offences the age of a victim
is a critical factor which will influence the decision
to grant bail.
90. No provisions circumscribing the right of bail can
be distilled from the scheme of POCSO Act. The
existing norms of bail jurisprudence are sufficient to
effectively implement the POCSO Act and to serve
justice. Of course, the threshold of satisfaction of the
Court while granting bail may vary in the facts and
circumstances of each case."
In conclusion, the Court found inconsistencies in the agerelated evidence of the victim and the existence of a prima
facie defence by the accused that the victim was a major. The
prosecution's reliance on unverified documents could not justify
continued detention, particularly when material contradictions
were apparent. Bail was therefore granted on legal and
constitutional grounds.
9.2 Now, let us examine Aman (supra).
The Court noted a recurring problem in POCSO cases: frequent
contradictions in the recorded age of victims and false depiction
of majority as minority, often leading to the weaponisation of the
legislation against young couples in consensual relationships.
Medical determinations of age, drawn per the latest scientific
protocols, were deemed more reliable and essential to prevent
injustice.
Referring to Sections 164-A CrPC and 27 POCSO Act, the
Court held that a medical report determining the victim's age
is a mandatory component of investigation in every POCSO
case. Such reports assist Courts in making accurate findings,
preventing false implication, and ensuring fair application of law.
Accordingly, the Court issued directions:
"1. The police authorities/investigation officers shall
ensure that in every POCSO Act offence a medical
report determining the victim's age shall be drawn
up at the outset under Section 164A of the Criminal
Procedure Code read with Section 27 of the Protection
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
787
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The
report may be dispensed with if medical opinion
advises against it in the interests of the victim's health.
2. The medical report determining the age of the victim
shall be created as per established procedure of law
and in adherence to latest scientific parameters and
medical protocol.
3. The medical report determining the age of the victim
shall be submitted under Section 164-A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure to the Court without delay.
4. The Director General (Health), Government of
Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow shall also ensure that the
doctors who comprise the Medical Board are duly
trained and follow the established medical protocol
and scientific parameters for determining the age of
the victims in such cases. Constant research shall
be done in this field to keep the reports in line with
the latest scientific developments. A copy of this
order be communicated by the learned Government
Advocate to the Director General of Police, Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh for compliance and Director General
(Health), Government of Uttar Pradesh,"
9.3 Although it did not place reliance on Pradeep Kumar Chauhan
(supra) a significant portion of the judgement was devoted to
answering its application, as contended by the advocate for the
State; hence, it is important to refer thereto. The Court undertook
a detailed examination of the applicability of Pradeep Kumar
Chauhan (supra) and ultimately distinguished its ratio. The
Court observed that while Pradeep Kumar Chauhan (supra)
had been invoked in several bail applications to argue that the
age recorded in school certificates is conclusive under Section
94 JJ Act, such reliance was misplaced. The Court relied almost
entirely on an earlier Full Bench decision Chandrapal Singh v.
State of U.P.14 which had already undertaken a comprehensive
analysis of the governing law on age determination under
Section 94 of the JJ Act.
14
2022 SCC OnLine All 934
788
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Relying on the reasoning in Chandrapal Singh (supra) the
learned single Judge reaffirmed that Pradeep Kumar Chauhan
(supra) did not correctly reflect this settled legal position. That
decision had treated documentary proof of age such as school
or matriculation certificates as final and conclusive, thereby
excluding the possibility of further scrutiny. It held that such
a restrictive view was inconsistent with the this Court's liberal
and contextual interpretation of Section 94 JJ Act. Accordingly,
Pradeep Kumar Chauhan (supra) was distinguished and held
to be inapplicable. The Court concluded that the determination
of age, whether of a victim or an accused - must rest on the
totality of credible evidence, and that the statutory presumptions
under Section 94 JJ Act,though significant, are rebuttable and
subject to judicial verification to ensure fairness and prevent
miscarriage of justice.
The Jurisdictional Question
10. The High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction issued the directions
reproduced supra. One of the issues raised by the Appellant-State
is that the same was beyond the scope of jurisdiction. The question
of jurisdiction to issue these directions also confronted the learned
Single Judge who answered the same stating that while exercising
statutory jurisdiction, the High Court is not denuded of its constitutional
status and, therefore, it is entirely open, to consider questions of law
as in the present case. Observations in this regard are extracted
hereunder:
"10. While sitting in bail determination, this Court is not
denuded of its constitutional status. The High Court is
a court of record and a constitutional court irrespective
of the nomenclature of the jurisdiction it is exercising.
Needless to add that the High Court always exercises its
jurisdiction as per law. While deciding bail applications the
High Court exercises a composite jurisdiction of statutory
powers and constitutional obligations. At times legal issues
which directly impinge on the fair administration of justice
arise in bail jurisdiction. The High Court cannot neglect
consideration of such issues on the footing that they are
beyond the scope of bail jurisdiction. The High Court always
possesses the necessary powers to decide such issues
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
789
The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr
for dispensing fair justice and to realize the fundamental
rights of an accused in bail jurisdiction. Refusal to decide
the said issues would amount to abdication of constitutional
obligations of this Court. Issues arising in the instant case
(and those referred in the judgment) directly impact the
right of a prisoner to seek bail. They have to be decided by
this Court with clarity in lawful exercise of bail jurisdiction
and in the interests of equal justice."
11. Let us now, independently examine this issue.
11.1 Section 439 CrPC reads as under:
"439.