Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439
Scope of bail jurisdiction – Limits – Issuance of general directions
Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to deciding whether the accused should be released on bail pending trial. The High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction, cannot issue general or mandatory directions governing investigation, nor can it enlarge the scope of statutory powers by invoking its constitutional status.
(Paras 10–11.5, 18)
High Court – Constitutional powers vs. statutory jurisdiction
Fusion impermissible
Although the High Court is a constitutional court, constitutional status cannot be used to expand a narrowly circumscribed statutory jurisdiction. Powers exercised under Section 439 CrPC remain statutory and cannot be enlarged by reference to constitutional obligations.
(Paras 11.2–11.5, 18)
POCSO Act, 2012 – Section 27 r/w Section 164-A CrPC
Medical examination – Scope
Medical examination under Section 27 POCSO Act read with Section 164-A CrPC is meant for collection of medical evidence relating to sexual assault. These provisions do not mandate compulsory medical age determination of the victim in every POCSO case.
(Paras 8.1–8.2, 12, 17–18)
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 94
Age determination – Hierarchy of evidence
Section 94 prescribes a statutory hierarchy for age determination:
(i) school/matriculation certificate,
(ii) municipal birth certificate, and
(iii) medical opinion only in absence of (i) and (ii).
Medical age determination cannot be mandated as a matter of course and can be resorted to only when statutory documents are unavailable.
(Paras 8.3, 13.1, 16–17)
Victim under POCSO Act – Determination of age
Stage and forum
Determination of the age of the victim under POCSO Act is a matter for trial, not for adjudication at the stage of bail. At the bail stage, the Court may take only a prima facie view based on documents, without examining their correctness.
(Paras 14.8–14.10, 16, 18)
Bail proceedings – Mini trial
Impermissibility
A bail court cannot conduct a mini trial, re-appreciate evidence, test the correctness of age-related documents, or direct investigative exercises such as constitution of medical boards for age determination.
(Paras 15–15.3, 16, 18)
POCSO Act – Presumption and legislative intent
Strict adherence to statutory scheme
Judicial directions cannot override or dilute the legislative intent underlying Section 94 JJ Act by mandating medical age determination in every case. Courts must adhere to the procedure expressly provided by Parliament.
(Paras 17–18)
Effect on prior High Court judgments
Prospective operation
Directions issued in Aman v. State of U.P. and Monish v. State of U.P., being intrinsically connected to the impugned judgment, stand set aside. However, the effect of the present judgment is prospective, and bail already granted under those judgments is not disturbed.
(Para 20(b)–(d))
ANALYSIS
1. Core issue
The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC, could (i) mandate medical age determination of victims in all POCSO cases, and (ii) adjudicate the correctness of age-related documents at the bail stage.
(Paras 6–7, 10)
2. Jurisdictional transgression
The Court held that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by issuing general directions affecting investigation. Bail jurisdiction is limited and cannot be converted into a supervisory or law-making exercise.
(Paras 11–11.5)
3. Constitutional vs. statutory power
A detailed distinction was drawn between constitutional powers and statutory powers, emphasizing that constitutional status does not permit expansion of statutory jurisdiction.
(Paras 11.3–11.5)
4. Statutory scheme of age determination
The Court reaffirmed that Section 94 JJ Act governs age determination even for POCSO victims, following Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, and that medical tests are the last resort, not the first.
(Paras 13.1, 14.6–14.7, 16–17)
5. Bail stage limitations
At the bail stage, courts may only examine whether age documents exist and what they disclose prima facie. Any challenge to their authenticity or correctness must await trial, as testing them would amount to a mini trial.
(Paras 14.10, 15–16)
6. Victim vs. juvenile offender
The Court carefully distinguished between juvenility claims by accused persons, which may be raised at any stage, and age determination of victims, which must be settled early and conclusively at trial to avoid vitiation of proceedings.
(Paras 14.9–14.10)
7. Caution on misuse of POCSO
While disapproving the High Court’s directions, the Court acknowledged concerns regarding misuse of POCSO Act in consensual adolescent relationships and suggested legislative consideration, including a possible Romeo-Juliet clause.
(Paras 19–20)
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is limited to deciding bail and does not empower the High Court to issue mandatory or general directions governing investigation or evidence collection.
-
The High Court cannot enlarge statutory bail jurisdiction by invoking its constitutional status; constitutional and statutory powers operate in distinct spheres.
-
Medical age determination of a POCSO victim cannot be mandated as a matter of course and may be resorted to only in the absence of documentary evidence contemplated under Section 94 of the JJ Act.
-
Determination of the victim’s age is a matter for trial; at the bail stage, courts may take only a prima facie view without testing the correctness of age-related documents.
-
A bail court cannot conduct a mini trial, re-appreciate evidence, or order investigative exercises such as constitution of medical boards for age determination.
-
Judicial directions cannot override or dilute the legislative scheme under Section 94 JJ Act by compelling medical age determination in every POCSO case.
