Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
The State of Uttar Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Anurudh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2026 [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025]
Decided On : 09-01-2026
The determination of age in cases involving minors, particularly under laws like the POCSO Act, must adhere strictly to the statutory procedures outlined by legislation. The law establishes a hierarchical approach to age verification, prioritizing documentary evidence such as school certificates, birth certificates issued by authorities, or matriculation records. Medical age estimation, while useful, is considered a supplementary or last-resort method and not conclusive on its own (!) (!) .
The legal framework emphasizes that the process of age determination at the initial stages—such as during bail proceedings—is primarily tentative. Courts are permitted to review the credibility of documents and consider credible evidence, but they are not authorized to conduct a mini-trial or undertake an exhaustive verification of the accuracy of the documents at this stage (!) (!) . The permissible scope is to form a prima facie opinion based on the available documents, recognizing that the presumption of correctness attached to such documents can be rebutted during trial proceedings (!) (!) .
Regarding the margin of error, scientific methods such as ossification tests or other medical age estimation techniques are inherently subject to a degree of uncertainty. These tests can indicate an approximate age range but are not definitive. Courts are cautioned to treat medical estimates as guiding rather than conclusive evidence, and they should be considered alongside other credible evidence, including documentary proof (!) (!) .
In summary, age determination at the bail stage is a preliminary assessment relying on documentary evidence with a rebuttable presumption of accuracy. Medical estimates are to be used cautiously, acknowledging their inherent margin of error, and cannot replace documentary proof as the primary basis for establishing age in legal proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail appeal facts and background. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments about bail and legal duties in age determination. (Para 3 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. court's interpretation of statutory and constitutional jurisdiction in bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion on jurisdiction issues in high court's bail mandate. (Para 18 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KAROL J.
For ease of reference, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| Contents |
| The Appeal |
| Facts And Previous Proceedings |
| The Impugned Judgment |
| Question To Be Determined |
| Analysis And Determination |
| Relevant Provisions |
| What were the bases for the High Court’s Conclusions and Directions? |
| The Jurisdictional Question |
| Whether the impugned directions rest on sound legal grounds? |
| Determination of the age of the victim - At what stage and by whom |
| Mini Trial- Impermissible at the stage of Bail |
| Medically Determining the Age of the Victim |
| Summation |
| A Necessitated Post-Script |
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 [FIR] 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, 1973.2 [Cr.P.C.] 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 [IPC] and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20124 [POCSO Act] 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 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 Cr.P.C. 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:
5.2 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 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 7 POCSO Act is mandatory and is often a more reliable
The Supreme Court clarified that age determination in POCSO cases must follow statutory provisions strictly, and bail courts cannot exceed their jurisdiction to conduct mini-trials on age credibility....
The court emphasized the necessity of accurate age determination in POCSO cases, requiring reasoned medical reports and adherence to statutory provisions for bail applications.
The court established that the police must obtain a medical report determining the victim's age in POCSO cases, emphasizing the mandatory nature of this requirement under the law.
Accurate medical age determination is essential in POCSO cases to prevent misuse and ensure justice, impacting bail decisions significantly.
The acquittal was upheld due to insufficient evidence establishing the prosecutrix's minor status and valid consent being given, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in sexual assault case....
The jurisdiction of a Special Court under the special legislation is strictly dependent on the victim's age. When age is disputed, the court must conduct a formal inquiry under the relevant juvenile ....
The court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, affirming that consent is irrelevant when the victim is a minor, and established the victim's age as 16 years through credible evidence.
The age of consent is irrelevant in bail decisions under the POCSO Act; factors such as the nature of the offence and the accused's behavior must guide discretion.
Consent of a minor has no consequence for offences under POCSO Act as well as Section 375 I.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
