LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus ANURUDH & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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 Ju
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.