In a significant procedural directive, the Rajasthan High Court has underscored the mandatory nature of determining a victim's age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 before proceeding with trials under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court dismissed a bail application with liberty to refile after the trial court records the victim's statement, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory timelines.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kuldeep Singh, sought bail in FIR No. 449/2025 dated 25.07.2025, registered at Police Station Rawatsar, Hanumangarh, for the offence under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The FIR alleged that the petitioner entered into a live-in relationship with the victim, who executed a supporting affidavit. However, the charge-sheet indicated the victim's date of birth as 01.01.2011, based on school admission records, raising critical questions about her age at the time of the alleged offence.
Key Facts
- The FIR was registered on 25.07.2025 for an offence under Section 137(2) BNS
- The victim's date of birth, as per school records, was 01.01.2011, making her 14 years old at the time of the alleged incident
- The victim allegedly executed a document and affidavit supporting a live-in relationship with the petitioner
- The charge-sheet was filed, but the victim's age remained unverified under statutory provisions
Procedural History
- 25.07.2025: FIR registered at P.S. Rawatsar under Section 137(2) BNS
- Date not specified: Charge-sheet filed before the trial court
- Date not specified: Bail application (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14810/2025) filed before the Rajasthan High Court
- 01.07.2026: High Court disposed of the bail application with directions to the trial court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner sought bail, arguing that the victim's age required statutory determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petitioner offered to withdraw the bail application with liberty to refile after the victim's statement was recorded.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not contest the withdrawal but emphasized the need for strict compliance with statutory procedures, including the recording of the victim's statement within the mandated timeline.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought bail in the pending criminal case, while the Court's order focused on ensuring procedural compliance, including the victim's age determination and statement recording.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether proceedings under the POCSO Act can proceed without a prior determination of the victim's age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and whether the trial court is obligated to record the victim's statement within a specified timeline.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner's counsel argued that the victim's age, as indicated in the charge-sheet, necessitated formal determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The counsel sought liberty to withdraw the bail application and refile it after the victim's statement was recorded, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the withdrawal but stressed the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, including the timely recording of the victim's statement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the victim's age, as per school records, was 01.01.2011, which would make her a minor at the time of the alleged offence. Under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the trial court is mandated to determine the age of the victim before proceeding with the trial. The Court emphasized that this determination is not merely procedural but a fundamental safeguard to ensure that offences under the POCSO Act are adjudicated in accordance with the law.
The Court further noted that the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act impose a statutory duty on the trial court to record the victim's statement within 30 days of the charge-sheet's filing. This timeline is critical to prevent undue delay and ensure justice for the victim. The Court directed the trial court to prioritize the recording of the victim's statement, fixing the hearing for the week commencing 06.07.2026, and to employ all legal measures to secure the victim's attendance if necessary.
"The trial Court is required to determine the date of birth of the victim under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The recording of the victim's statement is mandated within 30 days of the filing of the charge-sheet, and the trial Court shall ensure compliance with this timeline."
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the bail application as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to refile it after the victim's statement was recorded. The trial court was directed to:
- Record the victim's statement on a priority basis, preferably within 30 days of the charge-sheet's filing
- Fix the case for recording the statement in the week commencing 06.07.2026
- Employ all legal methods to secure the victim's attendance if she fails to appear
- Ensure compliance with Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 for age determination
The Court also directed the office to send a copy of the order to the trial court by email on the same day.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Mandatory Age Determination Under JJ Act
This judgment reinforces that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is not a mere formality but a mandatory procedural safeguard. Trial courts must:
- Independently verify the victim's age using school records, medical examination, or other reliable evidence
- Ensure that the age determination is completed before proceeding with the trial
- Avoid relying solely on the charge-sheet's assertions without statutory verification
Timely Recording of Victim's Statement
The Court's directive highlights the statutory timeline under the POCSO Act for recording the victim's statement. Practitioners should note:
- The victim's statement must be recorded within 30 days of the charge-sheet's filing
- Trial courts are obligated to prioritize such cases and fix early dates for recording statements
- Failure to comply with this timeline may result in procedural lapses, potentially impacting the case's outcome
Bail Applications and Procedural Compliance
- Bail applications in POCSO Act cases may be dismissed or deferred until procedural compliance is ensured
- Petitioners can seek liberty to refile bail applications after fulfilling statutory requirements
- Courts are likely to scrutinize procedural compliance strictly, especially in cases involving minors
