Rajasthan HC Grants Bail in POCSO Case, Flags Police Ignorance of Age-Determination Law and Calls for DGP-Level Training

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain granted bail to an accused in a POCSO and BNS case while directing the DGP, Rajasthan to arrange training for investigating officers on statutory age-determination procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur granted bail on 28 July 2026 to Shankar Ram, a 22-year-old accused lodged in District Jail Bikaner, in a case registered under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, sitting singly, allowed the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita while finding the victim's age doubtful and noting that the accused had been in custody since his arrest on 10 November 2025. What gives this order wider significance is the court's pointed observation that the investigating agency conducted an age-determination exercise in a manner that was plainly inconsistent with the procedure mandated by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and that the trial court too had a duty to catch the defect at the earliest stage.

The FIR and Charges

FIR No. 164/2025 was registered on 7 June 2025 at Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner, by the brother of the victim after a report of kidnapping, elopement and rape. The FIR named offences under Section 123, 137(2), 127(2), 351(3), 64(1), 70(1) and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as Section 3, 4, 5(g), 6 and 5(l) of the POCSO Act.

The victim was medically examined after the FIR was registered. Shankar Ram was arrested on 10 November 2025 and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed against him. By the time the bail application was heard, the victim's statement had already been recorded before the trial court.

The bail application, filed as S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2521/2026, was contested by the Public Prosecutor, who submitted that the offence was serious and that the role and involvement of the applicant were established from the material on record.

The Age Dispute at the Core of the Case

Whether the victim was a minor on the date of the incident — 6 June 2025 — was the central factual uncertainty. The court found no documentary birth record on file. The investigating agency had obtained an opinion from a Medical Officer at the Community Service Centre, Khajuwala, District Bikaner, who estimated the victim's age at between 15 and 18 years.

The picture from the witnesses was less definitive. The victim's sister, examined as PW-2, stated that the victim's Jan Aadhar Card recorded her age as 18 years. The complainant brother, PW-3, acknowledged that the doctor had placed her age at 15–16 years. The victim herself, examined as PW-1, admitted in cross-examination that the doctor had suggested her age as 18–19 years.

The defence counsel argued that since the medical opinion spanned the range 15 to 18 years, an opinion favourable to the accused — that is, that she was 18 — had to be considered for the purpose of age estimation. The court accepted that the age question was genuinely doubtful and that it would ultimately be a matter for the trial court to resolve.

Why the Ossification Test Was Not Enough

Justice Jain did not leave the age-determination issue at a factual observation. He turned to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which prescribes a sequential procedure for establishing age. Under that provision, a birth certificate from school or a matriculation certificate comes first. A certificate from a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat comes next. An ossification test or other medical age-determination test is a last resort, and only in the absence of both earlier categories of documents.

The court reproduced Section 94 in full. Crucially, the provision specifies that such a medical test must be conducted on the orders of the relevant Committee or Board, and must be completed within fifteen days of the order.

Two Supreme Court decisions were cited. In Rajni v. State of U.P. & Others, reported as 2025 INSC 737, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of certificates under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, an ossification test is the only approach for determining age. In Shah Nawaj v. State of UP, reported at (2011) 13 SCC 751, the Supreme Court observed, while considering Rule 12 of the JJ Rules, 2007, that medical opinion from a medical board should be sought only as a last resort when no documentary evidence is available.

The court's criticism of the police was direct: the opinion in this case was given not by a medical board but by a Medical Officer at a community service centre, and the process was not conducted in accordance with the legal framework under the JJ Act or the POCSO Act. Justice Jain stated that “police is not aware about the legal provision.” He added that it was equally the trial court's duty to identify and flag such defects at the earliest stage of proceedings, since a defect that surfaces only after trial begins cannot be cured.

Direction to the Director General of Police

The court went beyond the individual case to address what it described as a systemic gap in investigative practice. Justice Jain observed that investigating officers handling POCSO cases or matters involving juveniles and children in conflict with the law require extensive training in the applicable legal provisions. The failure to follow the statutory procedure for age determination, he held, directly affects the justice delivery system.

The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, for compliance. The Registry was separately directed to transmit a copy to the trial court by e-mail.

Grounds for Bail

On the bail question itself, the court weighed several factors. Shankar Ram had been in custody since 10 November 2025 — over eight months by the date of the order. The victim's statement had been recorded by the trial court, reducing the risk of witness influence. The charge-sheet had already been filed, so the accused was no longer required for investigation. The defence pointed out that according to the victim's own statement, she had voluntarily accompanied the accused on a bike in the presence of many people, and nothing in the medical examination showed that force was used.

The court noted that the age of the victim remained doubtful and would require determination at the stage of the trial court's decision. It found no ground to apprehend flight risk, and observed that the trial was likely to take further time. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court allowed the application.

Order

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain allowed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2521/2026 and ordered that Shankar Ram be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The following conditions were imposed:

• The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness.
• He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or repeat any criminal offence punishable under law.
• He shall attend every hearing of the trial court on the date fixed, or whenever called to appear.
• Any violation of these conditions will render the bail liable to cancellation.

The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the trial court by e-mail. A separate copy was directed to be sent to the DGP, Rajasthan for compliance with the court's observations on police training in POCSO and juvenile matters.