Forged School Records Used to Invoke POCSO: Allahabad HC Grants Bail, Orders UP Education Department to Frame Age-Certificate Guidelines

Finding that a transfer certificate relied upon to show the victim was a minor was forged, the Allahabad High Court granted bail and directed the UP Basic Education Department to prescribe a standard format for school age certificates within two months.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, granted bail to Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu, an accused in a POCSO case from Prayagraj, after a court-directed inquiry revealed that the school transfer certificate used to establish the victim’s minority had been forged. With no valid documentary proof of age surviving scrutiny, the ossification test—which placed the victim’s age between 18 and 20 years—became the only reliable material before the court. The bench also observed a pattern of such forgeries being used to attract the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, to issue standardised guidelines for school-issued date-of-birth certificates, preferably within two months.

The Case Before the Court

The bail application arose from Case Crime No. 59 of 2026 registered at Police Station Tharvai, District Prayagraj. The applicant faced charges under Sections 65(1), 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 3/4(2) of the POCSO Act. The FIR alleged that he had enticed away the daughter of the first informant.

The applicant had been in custody since 1 May 2026. Counsel Sri U.C. Chaturvedi appeared for him; Sri Durgesh Kumar Mishra represented the first informant; and Sri Anand Pratap Singh appeared as Additional Government Advocate for the State.

A charge sheet had already been filed in the case. The applicant’s counsel submitted that no custodial interrogation remained necessary at this stage and that the applicant had no criminal history.

The Victim’s Own Statements and the Medical Report

The applicant’s counsel placed two recorded statements before the court. In her statement under Section 180 BNSS, the victim stated that she had left home on her own because her parents had scolded her and that she subsequently stayed at an Aashram. In her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she stated that she had left home of her own freewill along with the applicant, as she was in a relationship with him.

The medical examination report of the victim, according to counsel, did not support any allegation of assault or show any mark of injury. The State and the first informant’s counsel opposed bail but did not dispute these facts.

How the Age Question Unravelled

The critical issue was the victim’s age. When the matter was first heard on 30 July 2026, the ossification test report placed the victim’s age between 18 and 20 years. However, the school leaving certificate issued by Narayan Junior High School, Paigambarpur, Hetapatti, Bahariya Block, Prayagraj, recorded her date of birth as 12 November 2012—which would have made her a minor at the time of the alleged offence. The court directed the headmaster of that school to appear in person with the scholar register and school records.

On 4 August 2026, the headmaster appeared and disclosed that the school had recorded the victim’s date of birth on the basis of a transfer certificate (T.C.) purportedly issued by Kuldeep Gram Samaj Kalyan Junior High School. The court then directed the Investigating Officer to verify that T.C. from the issuing school.

When the matter was taken up on 12 August 2026, the Investigating Officer produced a letter from the headmaster of Kuldeep Gram Samaj Kalyan Junior High School. That letter stated plainly that the victim was never enrolled as a student in that school and that the alleged transfer certificate had not been issued by it.

The court concluded that a forged T.C. had been prepared in 2023, purportedly from Kuldeep Gram Samaj Kalyan Junior High School, and used to obtain admission in Narayan Junior High School. As a result, the school leaving certificate from Narayan Junior High School—which showed the date of birth as 12 November 2012—was disqualified. With no other documentary evidence of age surviving, the ossification test remained the only material available.

The Age-Determination Framework Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

The court set out the hierarchy prescribed under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for age determination. The provision requires the following sequence: first, the date of birth certificate from the school or a matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination board; second, in the absence of such certificates, a birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat; and third, only in the absence of both foregoing categories, an ossification test or other latest medical age determination test.

The bench observed that in many cases where the victim has not passed matriculation, the school-issued date of birth certificate becomes the primary document for age determination under Section 94(2). The court pointed out that the Act prescribes no format or procedure for the issuance of such certificates by schools, and that this lacuna had been “widely misused by the parties.” The absence of any standardised process had, the bench found, led to the false implication of several young men, made it difficult for them to obtain bail, and facilitated conviction through the presumptions built into the POCSO Act.

The bench cited the pattern it had encountered across multiple cases where parents of victim girls submitted forged school certificates to invoke the stringent POCSO provisions—even in cases where the victim had herself left home voluntarily while in a romantic relationship with the accused.

Bail Granted: Reasoning and Authorities Relied Upon

Taking into account the totality of facts, the nature of the offence, the evidence on record, the complicity of the accused, overcrowded jails, and the heavy pendency before trial courts, the court allowed the bail application. The bench drew on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, as well as the Allahabad High Court’s own guidelines in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765.

The court was careful to state that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.

Directions to the UP Basic Education Department

Beyond the bail order, Justice Deshwal issued a separate direction addressed to the systemic problem the case had exposed. The court directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, to issue necessary guidelines covering:

• A prescribed format for issuance of date-of-birth certificates by schools in cases where a student has not passed matriculation.
• The documents to be submitted by parents or guardians before a school at the time of admission.

These guidelines were to be issued as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within two months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The court directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate a copy of the order to the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, UP.

The court also directed compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions on early release through the Bail Order Management System (BOMS) and directed that a copy of the order be transmitted to the applicant through the Jail Superintendent, Prayagraj, via e-mail or the e-prison portal, and to the trial court via e-mode within 24 hours. These steps were in compliance with the Supreme Court’s orders in Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685, and in Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, decided on 29 May 2026.

Outcome

The bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22333 of 2026 was allowed. Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The bail is subject to standard conditions: he must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, must cooperate in the trial without seeking unnecessary adjournments, must not indulge in any criminal activity, and must attend as required under the bond. Identity, residence proof, mobile number, and Aadhaar card of the applicant and sureties are to be verified by the trial court before the bonds are accepted. Breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.