Can a High Court in bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC mandate mandatory medical age-determination in all POCSO investigations?

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Bail courts under Section 439 CrPC cannot issue procedural directives (e.g., mandatory medical age tests) beyond deciding detention or release.
• Age-determination for victims in POCSO cases must follow Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act’s hierarchy: matriculation certificates, school-entry records, municipal birth certificates, and only then medical tests.
• At the bail stage, courts may take a prima facie view of age-related documents but must not conduct a mini-trial or conclusively assess their correctness.
• Any challenge to the veracity of age certificates must await trial-stage inquiry under Section 94 JJ Act; bail courts may not re-weigh or displace them.
• High Courts cannot expand their statutory power under Section 439 CrPC by invoking constitutional status to issue general investigation-phase directions.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Scope of Section 439 CrPC
   • Section 439 is a purely statutory power limiting bail courts to deciding detention or release pending trial.
   • High Courts and Sessions Courts may not issue general procedural dictates (e.g., blanket medical tests) under that provision.
   • A bail court cannot conduct a mini-trial, re-examine evidence, or finalise disputed facts.
2. Constitutional vs. Statutory Power
   • Constitutional powers (e.g., under Articles 32/136) differ from statutory powers—they cannot be merged or used to enlarge statutory bail powers.
   • Section 439 CrPC remains confined to bail determinations despite the High Court’s constitutional status.
3. Age-Determination Scheme under Section 94 JJ Act
   • POCSO Act relies on Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act for victim’s age determination.
   • The statute prescribes a fixed hierarchy of proof: (i) matriculation/equivalent certificate; (ii) date-of-birth school entry; (iii) municipal birth certificate; (iv) ossification/medical test (only if earlier proofs are unavailable).
   • The presumption under Section 94 is rebuttable but must be tested at trial via inquiry, not at bail stage.
4. Application to Bail Stage
   • Bail courts may examine age documents to form a prima facie view of the victim’s age but cannot conduct full inquiries or mandate medical tests in every case.
   • Directions issued by the High Court (and in Aman/Monish) to require medical age assessments at investigation exceeded Section 439 CrPC and conflicted with the Section 94 framework.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (State of U.P.)

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC by issuing directions that go beyond bail determination and amount to procedural rules for investigations.
• The POCSO Act does not itself prescribe mandatory medical age tests at the investigation stage; age-determination follows Section 94 JJ Act at trial-stage inquiry.

Respondent No. 1

• High Court’s directions were needed to correct systemic lapses in age verification of POCSO victims and to secure fair bail proceedings.
• Documentary inconsistencies in school records, victim’s statements, and prior precedents justify allowing bail subject to medical age determination.

Factual Background

Respondent No. 1 was accused under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 7, 8 POCSO Act for allegedly abducting a 12-year-old girl. The trial court refused bail on 29 September 2023. On bail application, the Allahabad High Court directed the Chief Medical Officer to form a medical board for age determination, granted interim bail (8 May 2024) citing inconsistencies in age records, and confirmed bail on 29 May 2024 with directions mandating medical age tests under Section 164A CrPC and Section 27 POCSO Act.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 439 CrPC: Empowers High Court/Court of Sessions to grant or modify bail conditions; confined to bail–detention decisions; does not authorize issuance of general procedural mandates.
• Section 27 POCSO Act: Mandates medical examination of child victims “in accordance with Section 164A CrPC.”
• Section 164A CrPC: Provides procedure for medical examination of rape victims, including age recording, to form part of investigation records.
• Section 94 JJ Act: Sets out conclusive hierarchy for age determination of children in conflict with law; defines when medical tests may be ordered only if documentary proof is absent.
• Section 29 POCSO Act: Creates presumption of intent for certain offences, not relevant to mandatory age-tests at bail stage.

Alert Indicators

• 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court directions mandating medical age tests at bail stage are overruled.
• ✔ Precedent Followed – Limits of Section 439 CrPC; Section 94 JJ Act hierarchy.
• 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Allahabad High Court’s Aman and Monish judgments (Single Judge decisions) are set aside.