JUDGMENT - BHANDARI DALVEER, C.J.:-This is a classic case of violation of human rights, fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 ("the Act", for short).

2. The brief facts of this case are recapitulated as under:

Petitioner No. 1, Salim Ikramuddin Ansari, aged about 15 years at the time of his arrest, has moved this petition with a prayer to declare his incarceration in Mumbai Central Prison unlawful and in violation of the Act.

3. The first petitioner has also prayed that the second respondent be directed to produce him before the Juvenile Justice Board. The further prayer is to shift him from Mumbai Central Prison to the observation Home at Umerkhadi.

4. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 has remained in unlawful custody of the Mumbai Central Prison from 16th November, 2001 to 11th February, 2003 and for that, he be awarded compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/-.

5. Petitioner No. 1 has also prayed that he be awarded compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- for illegal detention in Mumbai Central Prison even after having been declared a juvenile by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 326 of 2002. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of some general directions.

6. The first petitioner was arrested on 16th November, 2001 when he was about 15 years of age by the first respondent, Borivali Police Station, in C.R. No. 377 of 2001 under sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was filed on 14th February, 2002 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 3rd April, 2002 and bore Sessions Case No. 326 of 2002. Petitioner No. 1 was produced twice before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Borivali and then shifted to judicial custody on 23rd November, 2001.

7. The first petitioner was shifted to Mumbai Central Prison and thereafter, he was never produced the Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali. He was not produced on as many as ten consecutive dates of Court-hearings, i.e., 7-12-2001, 21-12-2001, 3-1-2002, 16-1-2002, 30-1-2002, 14-2-2002, 20-2-2002, 6-3-2002, 20-3-2002 and 3-4-2002. It is astonishing that even when the case of the first petitioner was committed to the Court of Sessions on 3rd April, 2002, he was not produced before that Court on next eight consecutive dates, i.e., 5-8-2002, 17-9-2002, 17-10-2002, 13-12-2002, 17-2-2003, 26-2-2003, 21-3-2003 and 21-4-2003. It is also incorporated in the petition that the first petitioner was neither produced in Court when a charge-sheet was filed on 14th February, 2002, nor when his case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 3rd April, 2002, nor when the Sessions Court granted him bail on 17th October, 2002. The respondents could not contradict these averments of the petition.

8. It is submitted that the first petitioner for about one and a half years, was deprived of any opportunity of asserting his juvenility and number of Judges, who presided over his case, were denied an opportunity of seeing the first petitioner for themselves and realising the obvious fact that he was a juvenile. It is further mentioned that the first petitioner met Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate, who was then the Duty Counsel appointed to provide legal aid the Mumbai Central Prison for the first time and had stated that he was a juvenile. Miscellaneous Application No. 1731 of 2003 was filed claiming that the first petitioner was a juvenile and praying for the transfer of his case to the Juvenile Justice Board. On 20th November, 2003, for the first time, the Sessions Court directed petitioner No. 1 to be medically examined to determine his age. The medical examination could not be taken up on 29th November, 2003. Thereafter, the Sessions Court directed the Registrar to issue a letter to the second respondent calling upon her to get the first petitioner medically examined before the next date. The first petitioner was medicall

Click Here to Read the rest of this document