-  Supreme Court in the matter of Babubhai versus  State of Gujarat , and also in  Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 254, , held that ,Investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious. A fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.

- Further, under section 27 of the POCSO Act , the age proof of child is mandatory , and as per section 94 of this Act the age proof should be either a birth certificate , SLC or a Medical examination for the calculation of the age of the victim, and only a complaint by the parents or third party is not enough. 

- You should go through the charge sheet to get the ground for judgement 

1) e: X vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh[2026 INSC 44

The SC cancelled bail granted by the Allahabad HC, noting that the HC ignored material evidence, the gravity of the offence, and the vulnerability of the victim. The SC held that bail granted mechanically in POCSO cases, ignoring evidence to support the accused, is "manifestly perverse."
: Investigative apathy and failure to consider victim testimony regarding threats (due to the accused's local influence) cannot be overlooked.

2)Aman @ Vansh vs. State of U.P. & Another (Allahabad High Court, 2024)

false depiction of victims as minors is an abuse of process. The court highlighted that investigating officers "deliberately" avoid immediate medical age determination to falsely implicate individuals under strict POCSO provisions. 

We generally do not supply case law here in this forum, you may have to look for the same through online websites or journals posting the citations and pick one from them suiting to your circumstances.

We render opinion as to what can be done in furtherance to challenge the case filed against the aggrieved persons, if you are particular about the case laws alone, you may either contact your own advocate or search for one in the internet.

• 
  Case involving Mother's Influence(Unreported but similar to Chandresh vs. State of U.P. - 2026): Allahabad High Court (Jan 2026)
  
•  Mother filing false case to extract money/revenge.
• 
  High Court set aside convictions where the victim’s mother manipulated the prosecution case. 
  

Dear, do some research on google and high court/ supreme court website. you will get.

The Supreme Court has consistently condemned defective and biased investigations in criminal cases, including POCSO. In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Court laid down guidelines for impartial investigation. For false and motivated complaints, the case of Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana (2019) is highly relevant, where the SC quashed proceedings, noting the misuse of law for vengeance. While not a POCSO case, its principles apply. The Allahabad High Court has addressed similar concerns in cases like Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. (2021), where it highlighted the duty of police to investigate fairly and not merely support the prosecution story. For a fact pattern involving instigation by third parties in a school context, judgments such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, though on arrest procedures, are often cited to caution against mechanical arrests based on motivated complaints. To find the exact citations for your jurisdiction and facts, you should use legal research platforms like SCC Online, Manupatra, or Indian Kanoon, searching with keywords such as "false implication POCSO," "biased investigation POCSO Allahabad High Court," and "motivated complaint instigation teacher."