Juveniles in conflict with the law should not be routinely detained in Observation Homes pending probation reports, emphasizing parental custody as an alternative.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition is filed invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking an appropriate direction in relation to the petitioner, who is stated to be a child in conflict with law, in connection with Crime No.225 of 2025 dated 16.11.2025, registered for offences under Sections 191 (2), 296(b), 115(2), 132, 351(2) of BNS and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

2. The petitioner apprehends that upon being produced/surrendering before the Juvenile Justice Board, the Board may follow a practice of calling for a report from the Probation Officer and, till such report is received, send the child to an Observation Home, thereby affecting the child’s future, though there is no necessity in law to adopt such a course.

Case of the prosecution:

3. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is that on 16.11.2025 at about 7.00 p.m., after enquiry relating to a missing complaint of a major girl, certain persons allegedly assembled at the police station, caused disturbance, threatened/assaulted police personnel and damaged lights at the entrance, leading to registration of the present crime.

Case of the petitioner:

4. The petitioner is arrayed as A5 and claims to be a minor, studying 10^th Standard, with date of birth 02.12.2008, and contends that there is no specific overt act as against him and that he has been falsely implicated. The adult accused are stated to have been granted bail.

Submissions:

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment in K. Vignesh v. State , 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 28442 approving Ajith Kumar, an application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973, at the instance of a juvenile is not maintainable, and further, the Division Bench has held that a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to release the child cannot be issued under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973. This direction petition is an indirect way of seeking Anticipatory bail. Hence, it was contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not seek anticipatory bail in substance, and relied upon the order of this Court in Minor S. Manojkumar v. State , Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22689 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 wherein it has been clarified that merely for calling for a probation report or for passing orders in the bail petition, sending the child to the Observation Home is not contemplated, and that, as an interim measure, the Board may keep the child in the custody of parents/guardian.

7. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

8. The point for consideration is whether, while being bound by the Division Bench ruling inK. Vignesh v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 28442 this Court can mould relief to ensure that the child in conflict with law is not routinely sent to an Observation Home pending probation report/bail consideration, in the light of Minor S. Manojkumar v. State , Crl.O.P.(MD) No.22689 of 2023 dated 15.12.2023 Analysis:

9. The manner in which a juvenile in conflict with law when apprehended should be dealt with is clearly mandated in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter to be mentioned as “the Act”) .Section 10(2) of the Act reads as under:

“10. Apprehension of child alleged to be in conflict with law.

(1) ...

(2) The State Government shall make rules consistent with this Act,— (i) to provide for persons thro