2025:UHC:3993 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/2305/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajveer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State. 3. Applicant- Sumit, who is in Judicial custody in connection with Case Crime/FIR No. 37 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 (A), 376(2) IPC and Sections and Sections 3 (A)/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered at Police Station Jwalapur, District Haridwar, has sought his release on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per Aadhar Card and statement of the victim, she is major. 6. On the contrary, learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail. He drew the attention of this Court towards the statement of PW 4, i.e., the Principal of Adarsh Shishu Niketan Inter College, Haridwar. As per the statement of PW4, the victim was registered in the school in class-7 on 01.04.2017 and her date of birth was recorded 24.03.2004. He also filed the copy of the register containing this endorsement and certified it from the original exhibit enclosed with the counter affidavit. Admittedly, the incident happened on 25.01.2021 and on the date 2025:UHC:3993 of incident, the victim was minor i.e. about 16 years. 6. As per Section 34 (2) of the of the POCSO Act relates to the procedure in cases the commission of offence to determination of age by Special Court, which is quoted as under: “34. (2)- If any question arises in any proceeding before the Special Court whether a person is child or not, such question shall be determined by the Special Court after satisfying itself about the age of such person and it shall record in writing is reasons for such determination.” 7. As per Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: “94. Presumption and determination of age.- (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— “(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the 2025:UHC:3993 Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263, in para 22 (3) has also held as under: “(3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining – (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certific- ates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;” 10. This is admittedly on the basis of certificate issued by the Principal of the institution where the victim was admitted for schooling proves that the victim was 16 years at that time, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.05.2025 Kaushal