The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr.

1. Case Citation and Basic Information

• Full Case Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr.
• Citation: Criminal Appeal @SLP (Crl) 10656 of 2025.
• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date of decision: January 9, 2026.
• Bench Composition: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih.

2. Introduction

       3. Factual Matrix of the Case

The facts of the case in essence are that, on November 24, 2022, FIR was lodged by the mother of the victim girl who was aged about 12 years old against the Respondent No. 1 i.e., Anurudh. The allegations raised in the FIR were pertaining to the offences under Section 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Trial Court denied to grant bail to Anurudh on September 29, 2023.

Thereafter, in the proceedings before the High Court, the Court vide order dated April 22, 2024 ordered the Chief Medical Officer to constitute a medical board to determine the victim’s age, owing to inconsistencies in her age.  On May 8, 2024 the Court granted interim bail to the accused, taking into consideration of inconsistency in age as per 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. On May 29, 2024, the High Court granted bail to the accused and issued a number of directions for determining the age of the victim in POCSO matters.

Hence, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court and the Court sets aside the High Court’s order after analyzing the relevant provisions involved.

4. Issues Raised

Issue 1: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue direction mandating medical examination for age determination in all cases involving POCSO Act, at the stage of hearing bail application?

Issue 2: Whether the directions issued by the High Court with respect to determination of age is in consistent or in contravention of the existing provisions of law?

5. Arguments Presented

• Appellant’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The Appellant in this case is the State of Uttar Pradesh, who contended that the directions given by the High Court while granting bail to the accused / Respondent No.1 was in violation of the statutory limitations given under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This section is concerning the presumption and procedure for age determination. The Appellant argued that such determinations are to be made during the stage of trial, and not while hearing bail proceedings.

• Respondent’s Arguments (Anurudh & Anr)

The Respondent argued for balancing of rights and laid emphasis on the importance and necessity of conducting medical examination to ascertain the age of the victim. They argued that such determination is crucial at the stage of bail proceedings to avoid wrongful implications.

6. Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

On hearing issue no.1 regarding jurisdictional question, the Supreme Court ruled that though the High Court is a constitutional court, it cannot transgress the jurisdictional limits granted to it under Section 439 CrPC. By issuing blanket sweeping orders the High Court has extended its powers beyond the bail application itself. The Apex Court thus concluded that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by compelling medical assessment concerning age as a pre – requisite for granting bail.

On hearing issue no. 2, the Court scrutinized the reliance made by the High Court on the medical determination of age at the stage of hearing bail proceedings. The legislative intent behind enacting the POCSO Act and JJ Act was analyzed by the Court and it held that the statutory procedure as provided under Section 94 of the JJ Act must be adhered to, and stated that medical assessment in determining the age should follow only hen there are no documentary evidence available such as school records, birth certificate. Therefore, the Court remarked that the medical determination of age at the stage of hearing bail application was improper as the hearing in bail matters must not constitute “mini trial”. The Court also held that the bail court’s role is limited to evaluating prima facie evidence and hence should avoid exhaustive factual inquiries.

The Court held that determining the age is the role of a trial court and such assessment must adhere to the hierarchy of procedure laid under Section 94 of the JJ Act. Hence, the High Court made an error in evaluating the documents produced during the stage of granting bail.

7. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the directions passed by the High Court. The bail conditions imposed by the High Court were left undisturbed. It held that the statutory provisions of the JJ Act must be complied with when the question on age determination of the victim arises, thereby prohibiting the medical assessment at the stage of bail. It also ruled that the High Court had acted coram non judice (without jurisdiction) and laid a landmark verdict by setting forth important legal principles

8. Critical Analysis

This is a landmark case wherein the Supreme Court clarified a common but critical legal misconception regarding the method for ascertaining the age of minor victim. It reaffirmed that sch determination is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a procedure that is to be strictly followed as provided under the JJ Act. That legal hierarchy is as follows:

1. The School Certificate: The birth certificate issued by the school or a matriculation certificate holds the highest evidentiary value. It is considered definitive and must be accepted unless it is proven to be fraudulent during a full trial.
2. The Official Birth Certificate: Only if a school record is completely unavailable can the court consider a birth certificate issued by a municipal corporation or a panchayat.
3. The Medical Test: An ossification test or any other medical examination is the absolute last resort. It is to be used only when the first two categories of documents do not exist.

The High Court erred in evaluating the primary evidence and directly went for medical test which is overstepping its jurisdiction.

The POCSO Act designed to protect children is used by some as a weapon to prosecute adolescents. The girl’s family files a complaint of kidnapping and sexual assault. Under the rigid framework of the law, where a minor’s consent is legally invalid, the teenage boy is immediately branded a “sexual predator” and faces years in prison. An adolescent romance is legally reframed as a violent crime.

In response to misuse of the POCSO Act, the Apex Court recommended the Central Government to consider the notion of incorporating a close – in – age gap exemption in the contemporary POCSO Act, commonly known as “Romeo Juliet Clause” in various jurisdictions across the world. For such clause, the following three criteria has to be met namely – Age Proximity, Minimum Age Threshold, Absence of Exploitation.

9. Conclusion

This case is landmark in two aspects. Firstly, it clarifies the procedural correction regarding age determination and held that such determination is inherently a matter to be considered by the trial court and stressed on the adherence to the hierarchy of documents as given under Section 94 of the JJ Act. And secondly, this case is a profound call for re igniting the debate over affirmative defence with respect to proximate age, social and legal reform, urging lawmakers to confront the real-world consequences of a rigid law clashing with the complexities of adolescent life.

10. References

• Supreme Court Observer, https://share.google/aiNwtmVEOKxMQp3IF.