By the Court.—Heard Sri Sanjive Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Agrahari, learned AGA appearing for the State.

2. This is a habeas corpus writ petition seeking to question the continued detention of Smt. Arti at Nari Niketan, Bareilly under an order dated 25.2.2017 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in case crime No. 207 of 2017, under Section 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Budaun.

3. In this case on the date of motion, we issued a rule nisi directing that the detenue Smt. Arti detained at Nari Niketan, Bareilly be produced before us on 15.11.2017. The said order was made on 1.11.2017.

4. Rule nisi in this case was issued on 1.11.2017 on basis that the petitioners had come up with a medical report annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition which shows the detenue to be aged about 19 years. In addition, on record is the statement of the detenue Smt. Arti recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she is aged 19 years and has married the second petitioner of her free will; that she is absolutely uneducated; and that she wants to stay with him for the fulfillment of her marriage vows.

5. Today, the detenue Smt. Arti has been produced before us in compliance of our order dated 1.11.2017. She has stuck to her statement made before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, as done on the date of motion, has fallen back on the medical report as to the detenue’s age being 19 years and further on the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, has brought to our notice a school leaving certificate relating to the first petitioner issued by the Prathmik Vidyalaya, Bhojpur, District Bareilly dated 31.8.2017 which is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The said certificate relates to the first petitioner Smt. Arti. It shows that she had studied in the said school until she passed her class V. The date of birth of the first petitioner in this school leaving certificate aforesaid is entered as 5.2.2001. Going by the said certificate, the first petitioner as of date is aged less than 17 years. Learned AGA has also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 94 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which reads as under :

94. Presumption and determination of age.

1. Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under Section 14 or Section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.

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.

3. The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person.

8. Learned AGA has submitted that looking to the provisions of Section 94 of the Act, 2015, the date of