The Supreme Court upheld that Respondent No. 2 was a juvenile at the time of the offense, citing the statutory hierarchy under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Juvenile Justice Board erred by ignoring valid school and municipal birth certificates showing a birthdate of September 8, 2003, prematurely ordering a medical test, and unlawfully reviewing its own earlier order. The Court distinguished this case from *Shubam Sangra (2022)*, where documentary evidence was unreliable. Regarding bail, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, noting that over three years had passed since bail was granted, and there was no evidence of its misuse. However, it clarified that bail could be revoked if misused in the future. The Court also noted that the JJB had conducted a valid preliminary assessment under Section 15, as the accused was aged 16–18 and charged with a heinous offense, and correctly directed his production before the Juvenile/POCSO Court under Section 18(3).