ORDER

Date : 17.02.2022 Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Arunachal Pradesh.

By preferring this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, directing the respondent authorities to release the juvenile-in-conflict Tabom Mingki who is stated to have been detained in connection with Pasighat Police Station Case No. 08/2022 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The aforesaid Pasighat P.S. case was registered on the basis of an First Information Report(FIR), dated 21.01.2022, lodged by one Shri Kangkiling Taku, to the Officer-in-Charge of Pasighat Police Station, informing that his motorcycle (Yamaha R15 version 3 blue coloured bearing Registration No. AR-08A/8515) was stolen by some unknown miscreants at around 8.30PM from Paron Rental House near Aane Hotel at Pasighat on 05.01.2022.

In furtherance of the investigation of the aforesaid case, the I.O. had arrested as many as 8 persons including the present juvenile-in- conflict/accused. The accused was arrested on 27.01.2022 at 13.00 hours and thereafter, it appears that the accused along with others were forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The Annexure-3, however, does not contain any date indicating as to on which date, the arrested persons were forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. Neither, the petitioner has made any statement in the petition as to when the arrested persons were forwarded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, nor, any remand order(s) passed by the Magistrate concerned have either been annexed or, any statement to that effect has been made, in the present petition, filed.

The grievance of the petitioner as raised in this habeas corpus petition appears to be that though the accused is aged 15 years and hence, a juvenile, the police has treated him as an adult by showing his age as 19 years. The petitioner further contends that since the accused is a juvenile aged 15 years, he ought to have been produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The further grievance of the petitioner is that the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, who heads the Juvenile Justice Board(JJB) is on leave and therefore, the Juvenile Justice Board(JJB), Pasighat, is not functioning at the moment due to the absence of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Though there is no categorical statement or averment made in this petition as to when the accused was produced before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat, and/or the remand order(s) passed by the Magistrate concerned upon production of the accused; it appears that the accused is under detention in terms of the remand order(s) passed by the Magistrate before whom he has been produced.

In a case of this nature when the arrested person claims to be a juvenile and the police denies the juvenility of the arrested person; the procedure to resolve such an issue, appears to have been provided under Section 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Section 9(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, provides that “When a Magistrate, not empowered to exercise the powers of the Board under this Act, is of the opinion that the person alleged to have committed the offence and brought before him, is a child, he shall, without any delay, record such opinion and forward the child immediately along with the record of such proceedings to the Board having jurisdiction.”

In the instant case, however, neither, any order passed by the Magistrate concerned remanding the accused to the custody has been annexed, nor, any averments have been made in the petition as to how the accused was remanded by the Magistrate and fo