Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2026-01-09 allowed

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anurudh & Anr

Bench: 2 — Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

In Brief

A man accused of abducting a 12-year-old girl under the POCSO Act challenged his bail refusal. The Allahabad High Court granted bail and ordered mandatory medical age-determination tests for all POCSO cases. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's directions, holding that bail courts cannot issue broad investigative mandates or conduct detailed age inquiries. Age determination is strictly a trial function under the Juvenile Justice Act's hierarchy: documentary proof (school/birth certificates) takes precedence, with medical tests only when documents are unavailable. Bail courts may take only a prima facie view of age from available documents, not conclusively adjudicate correctness. Mandatory medical testing in every POCSO case is improper. The bail grant itself was undisturbed.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Bail Juvenile Justice POCSO Act Age Determination Evidence Child Protection Constitutional Law Jurisdictional Limits Statutory Interpretation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login