Allahabad HC Directs JTRI Lucknow to Create Standardized Mental Health Assessment System for POCSO Victims — What This Means for Accused Persons in UP

In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024:AHC:142805), the Allahabad High Court expressed concern over the lack of a structured approach to assessing the mental condition of child survivors under POCSO. The Court directed the JTRI Lucknow to create a standardized evaluation system or line of enquiry for mental condition assessment and rehabilitation of POCSO victims.

The directive is rooted in Rule 4 of the POCSO Rules, 2020, which mandates child-friendly procedures and support for victims. The Court emphasized that a structured mental health assessment is essential for both victim welfare and fair trial rights of the accused.

This ruling is significant because it shifts the focus from mere punishment to a holistic understanding of the child’s mental state, which directly impacts the credibility of evidence and the fairness of the trial. Learn more about Allahabad High Court judgments affecting criminal trials in UP.

Yes, absolutely. The Allahabad High Court directive empowers a POCSO accused in Lucknow to demand a proper mental health evaluation of the victim before trial. The rationale is simple: the mental condition of the child witness directly affects the reliability of their testimony. If the victim’s mental state has not been professionally assessed, the accused can argue that the prosecution’s case is incomplete or prejudiced.

Here are key steps an accused can take:

• File an application under Section 484 BNSS (old Section 439 CrPC) before the Sessions Court or High Court seeking a direction for mental health evaluation.
• Cite Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. as precedent to show the court that a standardized assessment is mandatory.
• Request the court to stay trial until the JTRI Lucknow develops the standardized system, or until an independent evaluation is conducted.
• Challenge the victim’s testimony if no mental health assessment was done, arguing violation of Rule 4 POCSO Rules, 2020.

Contact a criminal defense lawyer in Lucknow to draft such applications effectively. Timely action can lead to interim relief within 1-6 weeks.

Bail in POCSO cases has always been stringent because of the serious nature of offences. However, the Rajendra Prasad directive introduces a new layer of procedural fairness that can be used to secure bail. If the prosecution fails to produce a standardized mental health assessment of the victim, the accused can argue that the investigation is incomplete or biased.

Under Section 483 BNSS (old Section 437 CrPC), a Magistrate can grant bail in non-bailable offences if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is innocent. The absence of a proper mental health evaluation can be one such ground. Similarly, under Section 484 BNSS, the High Court or Sessions Court can grant bail even after rejection if new facts — such as the lack of a mental health assessment — emerge.

Read more about bail strategies in POCSO cases and how to use this ruling to your advantage.

The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Anr. (2026 INSC 47) clarified that High Courts cannot issue general investigative directions in bail proceedings that override the statutory hierarchy for age determination under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Under Section 94 of the JJ Act, documentary proof of age has priority, and medical examination is a last resort.

This ruling is important because many POCSO cases involve disputes about the victim’s age. If the prosecution relies solely on medical age determination without documentary evidence, the accused can challenge it. The Supreme Court also discussed the limits of Section 439 CrPC (now Section 484 BNSS) in bail matters — bail courts cannot issue roving directions for investigation.

Additionally, in State of Karnataka v. Muniswamy (2024 INSC 716), the Supreme Court held that the Section 30 POCSO presumption (culpable mental state) applies only after the prosecution proves foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The accused can rebut this presumption by leading contrary evidence, also beyond reasonable doubt. This means the prosecution cannot rely on presumption alone — it must produce credible evidence, including a proper mental health assessment if relevant.

• Key takeaway: The accused has the right to challenge the victim’s age and mental condition through proper legal procedures.
• Practical tip: File an application under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) to quash the FIR if the prosecution’s case is based on flawed age or mental assessment.

Learn about FIR quashing in POCSO cases and how these Supreme Court rulings can help.

Understanding the financial and time investment is crucial for any litigant. Below is an estimated breakdown based on current market practices in Uttar Pradesh:

These are market estimates, not court-fixed fees. Actual costs depend on seniority of counsel, urgency, and complexity. Schedule a consultation to get a precise fee quote for your case.

If you are a POCSO accused in Lucknow or anywhere in UP, here is a step-by-step strategy to leverage the Rajendra Prasad directive:

1. Immediately file an application before the trial court under Section 483 BNSS or before the High Court under Section 484 BNSS, citing the Allahabad High Court directive and demanding a standardized mental health assessment of the victim.
2. Request a stay of trial until the JTRI Lucknow develops the standardized system, or until an independent evaluation by a government psychiatrist is conducted.
3. Challenge the victim’s competency as a witness under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if no mental health assessment was done. The court must satisfy itself about the witness’s capacity to testify.
4. Use the Supreme Court rulings in Anurudh and Muniswamy to argue that age and mental condition must be proved through proper evidence, not presumption.
5. If bail is repeatedly denied, approach the High Court under Section 484 BNSS with a fresh application highlighting the lack of a standardized mental health assessment as a new fact.

Contact a Lucknow High Court lawyer who specializes in POCSO cases to implement these strategies effectively. Early intervention can make a significant difference in the outcome.

Advocate Onkar Pandey is a practicing lawyer at the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench with over 25 years of experience in criminal law, bail matters, FIR quashing, and family law. Enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (No. UP/4825/1999), he provides expert legal guidance to clients across Uttar Pradesh from his chamber at A-406, High Court, Lucknow. For a consultation on POCSO cases and bail, contact Advocate Onkar Pandey at +91 98392 71553.