Case Comment on State of UP vs Anurudh and Another

Abstract

This case comment discusses the SC's decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh addressing the scope of bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the determination of age of victim in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The judgment elucidates that, while exercising bail jurisdiction, High Courts must confine themselves to the question of issuance of bail and withhold from issuing wide administrative directions. It restates the statutory hierarchy of evidence for age determination by stating the prevalence of documentary evidence over medical opinion, except when reliable documentary records are unavailable. The comment also deals with the Court's observation on the need to consider a "Romeo-Juliet clause" to regard accusations arising from consensual adolescent relationships. It argues that the judgment seeks to equate the children's rights by preventing the misuse of beneficial legislation in cases of voluntary adolescent relationships. To sum it up, this decision reinforced the governing principles of bail adjudication, statutory framework for age determination, and significant discussion on legislative reform. This judgment throws light on the prevailing grey area in the POCSO Act.