The Supreme Court has acknowledged misuse of the POCSO Act and urged the Centre to introduce a “Romeo-Juliet” clause to protect “genuine adolescent relationships”. The Court also restrained courts from issuing blanket directions like mandatory medical age tests at the bail stage.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important judgment in a criminal appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the bail granted to an accused and addressed growing concerns on POCSO misuse. This case highlights a growing concern where serious criminal laws are increasingly invoked in relationship disputes, often resulting in prolonged incarceration of men even before trial.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that a minor girl had been abducted and subjected to offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The Allahabad High Court had granted bail and also issued several directions to police and courts regarding mandatory medical age determination in all POCSO cases, keeping in view repeated misuse of age claims against accused men.
The Supreme Court examined whether a High Court, while deciding a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can issue general directions to police authorities to mandatorily conduct medical age determination tests in all POCSO cases. This question is critical for men facing false or exaggerated allegations, as bail courts are often the first line of protection against arbitrary loss of liberty.
The case arose from a bail order passed by the Allahabad High Court in a POCSO matter, where the High Court not only granted bail but also issued wide directions to police and courts regarding compulsory medical age determination of the victim at the investigation stage. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this approach before the Supreme Court, arguing that such directions exceeded bail jurisdiction.
The High Court had reasoned that personal liberty under Article 21 is directly involved in bail matters and therefore courts can examine even investigative lapses that result in unjust incarceration. It observed that many consensual relationships between adolescents are being criminalised due to doubtful or manipulated age records, often under family or social pressure, with the male partner bearing the entire criminal burden. The High Court relied heavily on medical age determination over school documents, noting how documentary records are frequently misused. On this basis, it granted bail and issued directions applicable to all POCSO cases.
The Supreme Court analysed the legal framework and observed that medical age determination may indeed be useful in preventing false implication and protecting innocent accused men. However, it held that courts cannot convert bail proceedings into a full-fledged inquiry or impose blanket rules beyond statutory limits. The Court reiterated that while medical reports can assist courts in ensuring fairness, they must be used within the boundaries of existing law.
The Court explained that bail courts are not meant to conduct “mini trials”, decide disputed facts conclusively, or rewrite investigative procedures. Such exercises belong to trial courts or competent statutory authorities. Expanding bail jurisdiction in this manner, even with good intentions, risks legal uncertainty and judicial overreach.
At the same time, the judgment acknowledges a real problem that triggered the High Court’s concern — misuse of POCSO in teenage consensual relationships, popularly referred to as “Romeo–Juliet” situations. These cases often result in young men being jailed for years despite the relationship being consensual. Several High Court judgments had earlier noticed that young couples eloping or entering consensual relationships were being dragged into harsh criminal prosecution because of manipulated age records or parental retaliation.
However, the Supreme Court made it clear that systemic or policy correction cannot be done under the guise of bail jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the purpose of the POCSO Act and quoted its legislative intent:
“The primary legislative intent behind the enactment of the POCSO was to create a comprehensive legal framework that would not only punish offenders but also provide a child-friendly system for the recording of evidence, investigation, and trial of offenses.”
Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error. The directions mandating compulsory medical age determination in all POCSO cases were set aside. The Court emphasised that protection of children and protection of personal liberty of accused persons, particularly men who face disproportionate pre-trial punishment, must both operate strictly within the boundaries fixed by law.
This judgment sends a clear message. Consensual teenage relationships cannot be automatically treated as heinous crimes resulting in automatic incarceration of men, but at the same time, courts cannot dilute POCSO safeguards by bypassing statutory procedures. Romeo–Juliet narratives may exist socially, but legally, age determination and criminal liability must follow the statute, not emotion, sympathy, or public pressure.
The ruling restores balance by acknowledging misuse of POCSO that harms men, while also stopping judicial overreach at the bail stage, reaffirming that liberty, fairness, and child protection must coexist within the framework of law.
Explanatory table – laws & sections involved in this case
| Law / Section | Meaning in Simple Indian English | How It Applied in This Case |
| Section 439 CrPC | Power of High Court / Sessions Court to grant or cancel bail | Supreme Court held that this power is limited only to deciding bail. Courts cannot issue policy directions or conduct investigation-style inquiries during bail. |
| Section 164-A CrPC | Medical examination of victim including age | High Court directed compulsory medical age testing. Supreme Court said such directions cannot be passed in bail proceedings. |
| Section 27 POCSO Act | Medical examination of child victim | Read with Section 164-A. Supreme Court clarified that this procedure cannot be forced through bail orders. |
| Section 94 Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 | How age is legally determined using documents first, medical test only if needed | Supreme Court ruled that age determination involves evidence and must be decided during trial, not at bail stage. |
| Sections 363 IPC | Kidnapping | FIR alleged kidnapping of a minor girl. |
| Section 366 IPC | Abduction for marriage or illicit purpose | Added in FIR along with kidnapping. |
| Sections 7 & 8 POCSO Act | Sexual assault and punishment | Applied because victim was alleged to be minor. |
| Section 29 POCSO Act | Presumption of guilt | Discussed legally but not applicable during bail stage. |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent powers of High Court | Used for comparison to explain why bail courts cannot conduct a mini trial. |
Case Details
- Case Title: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anurudh & Anr.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10656 of 2025 2026 INSC 47
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026
- Counsels
- Counsel for the Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh
- Counsel for the Respondents: Appearing for the accused
- Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 47
- Originating Case: CRMBA No. 4880 of 2024 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has openly recognised that POCSO is being misused to settle scores and break consensual teenage relationships, with boys facing arrest and jail as the default outcome.
- Bail courts cannot run a mini trial or order compulsory medical age tests; liberty cannot be sacrificed at the investigation stage itself.
- Age determination of the victim is a matter for trial, not bail, preventing mechanical incarceration of young men on disputed age claims.
- The Court has clearly flagged the need for a Romeo–Juliet clause to protect genuine adolescent relationships from criminal prosecution.
- This judgment exposes how gender-biased application of protective laws turns safeguards into weapons against young men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.