$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 55/2018, CRL. MA 10402/2019 WASIM .....Appellant Through: Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate.

versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order on sentence dated 29.08.2017 and 01.09.2017 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in case FIR No.222/2010 registered under Sections 392/397 IPC at P.S. Seelampur, Delhi.

2. A perusal of record reveals that the appellant’s sentence was suspended vide order dated 09.06.2020, the appellant was unable to furnish the requisite surety.

3. At this stage, learned APP has referred to the nominal roll dated 09.12.2025, to submit that the appellant was released on 05.05.2022, but was subsequently re-arrested in connection with another case.

4. A further perusal of the record indicates that the appellant had also filed an application bearing Crl. M.A. No. 10402/2019, claiming juvenility at the time of commission of the alleged offence on 05.11.2010. The said application is accompanied by an order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in FIR No. 271/2011.

5. It is trite law that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage. Reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P.,1 “33. What emerges on a cumulative consideration of the aforesaid catena of judgments is as follows:

33.1. A claim of juvenility may be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding, even after a final disposal of the case. A delay in raising the claim of juvenility cannot be a ground for rejection of such claim. It can also be raised for the first time before this Court.

33.2. An application claiming juvenility could be made either before the court or the JJ Board.

33.2.1. When the issue of juvenility arises before a court, it would be under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 9 of the JJ Act, 2015 but when a person is brought before a committee or JJ Board, Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 applies.

33.2.2. If an application is filed before the court claiming juvenility, the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 would have to be applied or read along with sub-section (2) of Section 9 so as to seek evidence for the purpose of recording a finding stating the age of the person as nearly as may be.

xxx

33.5. That the procedure of an inquiry by a court is not the same thing as declaring the age of the person as a juvenile sought before the JJ Board when the case is pending for trial before the criminal court concerned. In case of an inquiry, the court records a prima facie conclusion but when there is a determination of age as per sub-section (2) of Section 94 of the 2015 Act, a declaration is made on the basis of evidence. Also the age recorded by the JJ Board shall be deemed to be the true age of the person brought before it. Thus, the standard of proof in an inquiry is different from that required in a proceeding where the determination and declaration of the age of a person has to be made on the basis of evidence scrutinised and accepted only if worthy of such acceptance.”

6. Considering that as per the prevailing position in law, as and when the

1 (2022) 8 SCC 602

mandate of the statute so requires, the appellant’s claim of juvenility has to be inquired into and determined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the JJ Act.

7. Considering the fact that the appellant has taken the plea of juvenility in view of Section 94 of JJ Act, the Trial Court is directed to conduct and inquiry in this regard and file a report.

8. The IO is directed to inform the appellant as well as to his counsel of the order passed today and the next date of hearing. In case the appellant remains in custody in the other case, the IO is also directed to inform the concerned Jail Superintendent to produce the ap