Held: The Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a High Court cannot undertake a mini trial or conclusively determine disputed questions of fact such as the age of the victim, credibility of evidence, or merits of the prosecution case, and that in prosecutions under the POCSO Act, determination of the victim’s age must ordinarily be supported by a medical report drawn in accordance with statutory provisions and established scientific protocols.
Summary: The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused in a POCSO case while issuing wide-ranging directions on age determination and investigative procedure. The High Court had scrutinised school records, statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and inconsistencies therein, and proceeded to grant bail after effectively adjudicating contested factual issues. The Supreme Court examined the scope of bail jurisdiction, the statutory framework under the POCSO Act, the JJ Act, and Sections 164-A CrPC, and held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding matters that properly fall for consideration at trial. The Court further emphasised that medical determination of age is a crucial investigative safeguard in POCSO cases and cannot be bypassed or diluted at the bail stage.
Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court was set aside to the extent it conducted a mini trial and issued impermissible directions, the legal position on age determination and bail jurisdiction was clarified, and the matter was remitted to proceed in accordance with law, with all pending applications disposed of.