State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh 2026 INSC 47 -POCSO - Bail - Medical Age Determination

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -POCSO Act - Bail ; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015- JJ Act- Section 94 - Determination of age of the victim 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 - 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 Section 94 JJ Act are not/cannot be met. (Para 16-17) 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. (Para 18)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 439- Court’s jurisdiction, i.e., either the Court of Sessions or the High Court under Section 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. (Para 11.2) Section 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- The Court cannot undertake a mini trial at the bail stage. (Para 15.3)

POCSO Act - Romeo – Juliet clause - Misuse/misapplication of the POCSO Act to settle scores and by families in opposition to relationships between young people- Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb this menace (1) the introduction of a Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of this law; (2) enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores etc. (Para 19)

POCSO Act - JJ Act - Unlike an offender who can claim benefit of juvenility at any point in time, even after completion of proceedings given the beneficial nature of the JJ Act, a victim of a crime cannot claim to be a juvenile at any point in time, for the charges against which an offender is tried, are intrinsically tied to the age of the victim.(Para 14.9)

JJ Act- The object of Section 9 is to ensure that no juvenile offender is tried as an adult merely due to an initial misclassification and to safeguard the rehabilitative and welfare-oriented spirit of the juvenile justice system by ensuring that every child in conflict with law is tried by the appropriate forum, i.e., the JJB. (Para 14.6)

Constitutional powers and Statutory Powers -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 process. The constitutional power cannot overshadow the statutory power, enlarging its scope beyond what has been envisaged by the statute -while both powers rest with the High Court, one power cannot usurp the ambit of another, unless otherwise permitted by law. (Para 11.3)

Summary: The Supreme Court set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that, while granting bail in a POCSO case, mandated medical age determination at the investigation’s outset and allowed bail courts to weigh age-document credibility. It held that bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is limited, age determination of the victim must follow Section 94 JJ Act during trial (medical tests only if documents are unavailable), and bail courts cannot conduct a mini-trial or fuse constitutional powers into statutory proceedings. The Court preserved existing bail orders, prospectively nullified the High Court’s directions (including in Monish and Aman), and urged consideration of reforms like a Romeo–Juliet clause to prevent misuse of POCSO in consensual adolescent relationships.