JUDGMENT :

AJAY BHANOT, J.

1. The judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:

(I) Introduction:

2. The prosecution case is briefly this. The victim is a minor. The applicant committed inappropriate sexual acts with her. The applicant is a major.

3. Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the age of the victim as shown in the prosecution case and has made these submissions:

(i) A false date of birth was got recorded in the school registers by the parents of the victim to give her an advantage in life.

(ii) Various documents like Pariwar Register and Aadhar card which reflect her true age and contradict the prosecution case have not been produced.

(iii) The pathological report reflects that the victim is 17 years of age.

(iv) The victim is in fact a major. However, no medical examination to determine her age as per the latest scientific criteria and medical protocol was got done by expert doctors as it would falsify the prosecution case.

(v) Inconsistencies in the age of the victim as stated in the F.I.R. the statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Section 164 Cr.P.C. school certificate and the age in the pathological report discredit the prosecution case regarding the victim’s minority.

4. In Ashish Haldhar vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10907 of 2022), it is contended by Shri Safiullah, learned counsel for the applicant that the age of the victim as per the radiological/medical report is 18 years. However, the school certificate records her age 13 years 06 months and 27 days. The victim in her statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. has asserted that she is 18 years of age. The F.I.R. as well as the statement of the first informant depict the age of the victim as 14 years.

5. Similar discrepancies in respect of the age of the victim are exist in other connected bail applications as well.

6. Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State contends that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as the “JJ Act 2015”] contemplates that the age depicted in the documents enumerated therein is conclusive and the same cannot be put to challenge in bail proceedings. Further, the offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. which alone is sufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act 2012”].

7. A number of members of the Bar submit that these two larger questions of law crop up regularly in bail applications under the POCSO Act, 2012. The issue needs to be decided in order to end the ambiguity in law.

8. The same questions of law arise in all the companion bail applications.

9. At this stage, the Court requested the members of the Bar to assist the Court on the questions of law.

10. Apart from the counsels for the applicants, Shri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel ass