The Supreme Court on Thursday drew a clear line on how far a High Court can go while deciding bail matters, especially in sensitive cases under the POCSO law. While examining a challenge by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the top court held that bail courts cannot issue sweeping directions on investigation, including mandatory medical age determination of victims.
The ruling came in an appeal against a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had not only granted bail but also laid down broad instructions for police and courts in POCSO cases.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Dumpers, Excavators Not ‘Motor Vehicles’; Gujarat Road Tax Demand Quashed
Background of the Case
The case arose from an FIR lodged in November 2022 at Orai, Jalaun district, alleging that a 12-year-old girl had been abducted and sexually assaulted. The accused was booked under kidnapping provisions of the IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
After the trial court rejected bail, the accused approached the Allahabad High Court. During bail proceedings, the High Court ordered constitution of a medical board to determine the victim’s age and later granted interim bail, citing inconsistencies in school records and statements.
In its final order dated May 29, 2024, the High Court confirmed bail and issued directions mandating medical age determination at the start of investigation in all POCSO cases.
The State challenged both the bail and the directions before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
The central question before the Supreme Court was narrow but significant: Can a High Court, while exercising bail powers under Section 439 of the CrPC, issue general directions affecting investigation in all POCSO cases?
The Court clarified that the appeal was not about the correctness of bail alone, but about the limits of jurisdiction in bail proceedings.
Court’s Observations
A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol stressed that bail jurisdiction has a defined scope.
“The jurisdiction under Section 439 is confined to deciding whether an accused should be released pending trial,” the Bench observed.
The Court rejected the High Court’s view that constitutional status allows it to issue investigative directions while hearing bail matters. It made a clear distinction between constitutional powers and statutory powers, stating that one cannot be used to expand the other.
The judgment noted that ordering medical age determination, examining documentary contradictions, and issuing statewide instructions amounted to conducting a “mini trial,” which is impermissible at the bail stage.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
On the issue of age determination, the Court reaffirmed that the law already provides a clear hierarchy of evidence under the Juvenile Justice Act, with medical tests being a last resort and not a mandatory starting point.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Allowing the State’s appeal in part, the Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing general and mandatory directions while deciding a bail application.
The Court set aside the impugned directions requiring compulsory medical age determination in all POCSO cases, holding them to be legally unsustainable.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
“The High Court erred in undertaking such an exercise while exercising bail jurisdiction,” the Bench ruled.
The Supreme Court clarified that issues relating to age determination must be addressed at the appropriate stage and by the competent forum, strictly in accordance with statutory provisions.
Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025
Decision Date: 09 January 2026
