JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A., for the respondents 1 and 2; and perused the record.

2. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by one Shahrukh Khan for production and release of Shahzad Bano by claiming that Shahzad Bano is adult as per medical examination and has been confined in a Protection Home against her wishes.

3. It appears that earlier seeking the same relief, another Habeas Corpus Petition No.207 of 2020 was filed which was got dismissed as withdrawn under order dated 28.02.2020. The earlier habeas corpus petition was withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh petition.

4. Considering that continued detention would provide a continuous cause of action, we proceed to consider the matter on merits.

5. A perusal of the record would indicate that on 21.08.2019 an FIR was lodged by respondent no.4 against the petitioner (Shahrukh) for enticing away informant's minor daughter Shahzad (corpus), aged 16 years. In connection with that case, the corpus was recovered and produced before the Court. On 31.08.2019, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.8, Aligarh passed a judicial order directing the victim Shahzad Bano to be placed before the Child Welfare Committee as her recorded date of birth is 08.07.2003. Pursuant to the judicial order dated 31.08.2019, the Child Welfare Committee by its order placed the victim in a Protection Home.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per medical examination the victim is an adult and, therefore, she should not be confined in a Protection Home against her wishes.

7. The learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and submitted that since the corpus is a child victim, the order directing her placement in a protection home is legally valid.

8. Having noticed the rival submissions, before we proceed to address the issue, it would be apposite to observe that the Apex Court had consistently been of the view that the principles applicable for determining the age of juvenile in conflict with law are to be applied for determining the age of child victim (vide Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263; State of M.P. Vs. Anoop Singh, (2015) 7 SCC 773; and Mahadeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 14 SCC 637).

9. Section 94 of the J. J. Act, 2015 provides for presumption and determination of age. Sub-section (2) of section 94 of the J. J. Act, 2015, which is relevant, is extracted below:

"(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining—

(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;

(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;

(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:

Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order."

From above, it is clear that primacy is to be accorded to the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, and in the absence thereof to the birth certificate given by a corporation or municipality or panchayat. Only in absence of the above evidence, medical evidence is to be taken into consideration.

Section 37 (1) (c) of the J. J. Act, 2015 empowers the Child Welfare Committee to place a child in need of care and protection in a Children's Home or fit facility for temporary care.

Section 2 (14) of the J. J. Act, 2015 defines a child in need of care and