Forged School Certificates in POCSO Cases — Allahabad HC Flags Misuse, Seeks Age-Verification Guidelines

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Overview

The Allahabad High Court has flagged what it called a “clear misuse” of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) in cases where parents of a victim submit forged school certificates to show her as a minor, and has directed the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education department to frame guidelines for issuing school date-of-birth certificates. The observations came while granting bail to a man whose case turned on a forged transfer certificate that had been used to record a false date of birth for the victim.

Case: Shivam Yadav @ Chhotu v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22333 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 611 — Neutral Citation 2026:AHC:168869
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Date: 12 August 2026

A note on this report: the underlying criminal trial remains pending, and nothing in this article expresses any view on the merits of the allegations. Consistent with the bar on disclosure of a child victim’s identity under Section 23 of the POCSO Act and Section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), this article does not reproduce the victim’s name, school, locality, or exact date of birth.

Facts

The applicant sought bail in a case registered under Sections 65(1), 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4(2) of the POCSO Act, at a police station in Prayagraj district. The victim’s age was in dispute: an ossification test placed it between 18 and 20 years, while a school-issued leaving certificate recorded a date of birth indicating she was a minor.

On the Court’s direction, the Headmaster of the school that had issued the leaving certificate appeared in person and stated that the date of birth had been entered on the basis of a transfer certificate said to have been issued by another school. The Court then directed the Investigating Officer to verify that transfer certificate with the second school. The Headmaster of that school informed the Court that the victim had never been enrolled there and that the transfer certificate had not been issued by it. On that material, the Court treated the transfer certificate, and consequently the date of birth recorded on its basis, as forged for the purposes of the bail application.

The victim, in statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), stated that she had left her home of her own will and was in a relationship with the applicant. The medical examination did not record any injury or sign of assault, the applicant had no prior criminal history, and a chargesheet had already been filed.

What the Court Held

A forged transfer certificate cannot support a school-leaving certificate’s date of birth. Once the second school confirmed the transfer certificate was forged, the Court held that the school-leaving certificate based on it “cannot be taken into consideration,” and that in such circumstances “the ossification test is the only option to be considered in the absence of any other document.”
Systemic misuse of the POCSO Act flagged. The Court observed: “This Court came across a number of cases, including the case of the present applicant, where the parents of the victim submitted forged school certificates… to attract the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, even in those cases where the victim herself left her house with the alleged accused.” It described this as showing “clear misuse of the POCSO Act just to punish a boy by the parents of the victim girl, who herself left her house being in a romantic relationship.”
Statutory hierarchy for age determination reaffirmed. The Court reproduced Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, under which age must first be determined from a school or matriculation certificate, failing which from a birth certificate issued by a corporation, municipal authority or panchayat, and only in the absence of both from an ossification or other medical test. It observed that the absence of any prescribed format for school-issued date-of-birth certificates “has been widely misused by the parties and resulted in false implication of several young boys,” making it harder for such accused to obtain bail and easier for them to be convicted “in view of the presumption provided under the POCSO Act.”
Bail allowed. Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation and the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines in Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. on the grant of bail — and taking into account overcrowded jails and pending trials — the Court allowed the bail application, expressly “without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,” subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or committing further offences.
Guidelines directed. The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, to issue guidelines — within two months of a certified copy of the order being produced — prescribing a format for schools to issue date-of-birth certificates to students who have not passed matriculation, and specifying the documents parents or guardians must submit at the time of admission.

Precedents Relied On

Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 — relied on for the applicable principles governing grant of bail.
Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765 — Allahabad High Court’s own guidelines on the grant of bail.
Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 4 of 2021, decided 31 January 2023, reported at (2024) 10 SCC 685, and Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, decided 29 May 2026 — relied on only for the procedural direction that release orders be communicated to the jail through the Bail Order Management System and e-mode within 24 hours, not for the substantive bail decision.

Takeaway

This order treats a forged age document not merely as a fact peculiar to one bail application, but as a pattern serious enough to warrant a systemic fix. Where a school-issued date-of-birth certificate is discredited as founded on a forged transfer certificate, Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act pushes the inquiry down to an ossification test rather than any other paper record. The Court’s direction to the Basic Education department — to prescribe a format for date-of-birth certificates and the documents parents must furnish at admission — is aimed at the gap which, in the Court’s words, “has been widely misused by the parties and resulted in false implication of several young boys.” The observations were made at the bail stage; the bail grant itself decides nothing on the merits of the pending trial, and the question of the victim’s age remains for the trial court to determine on the evidence.

Useful Resources

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.