Back
Juvenile Justice Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Minor, ₹10,000 Cost on SHO
In a significant ruling underscoring the primacy of the , the quashed the of a 17-year-old boy who was illegally treated as an adult and remanded to . A division bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar directed the immediate release of the minor and imposed a of ₹10,000 on the Station House Officer (SHO) of for flouting the meant for children in conflict with law.
A Father’s Desperate Plea
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Veligatla Venkata Narayana, the father of the minor. According to the petition, on , six unidentified persons forcibly took his son from their home in Mortha village, Undrajavaram Mandal. Two days later, the police registered Crime No.106 of 2026 under , alleging the boy’s involvement. On , the minor was produced before the , who remanded him to in the .
The father argued that his son was born on , making him just 17 years, 11 months, and 19 days old on the date of the alleged offence () — clearly a minor. He claimed the police had deliberately removed or obscured the date of birth from the Aadhar card and coerced the child not to disclose his age before the magistrate.
Police Blame Blurry Aadhar, Court Unconvinced
Respondents, represented by counsel for the Advocate General, contended that neither the father nor the son disclosed the correct age at the time of arrest. They claimed the Aadhar details were “slightly blurry,” especially the last digit of the year, leading them to believe the boy was born in 2006 (age 19 or 20). They also pointed out that no complaint about age or ill-treatment was made before the magistrate.
The court, however, was not persuaded. When the petitioner produced a certified copy of the Aadhar card from the Junior Civil Judge’s court, the bench noted that while the date of birth portion was missing in that copy, the material already on record clearly showed the correct date of birth as . “This Court is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition, was found to be not clear to concerned police,” the judges observed.
‘Illegal and Without Jurisdiction’
The court held that the magistrate too failed in his duty to verify the minor’s age before passing the . Since the boy was a “” under the JJ Act, only the had jurisdiction to deal with his case. The division bench declared the dated “” and set it aside.
The bench directed the Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajamahendravaram, to release the boy forthwith. However, the court clarified that this order does not bar the authorities from taking action against the minor strictly in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act.
Personal Costs on SHO for Negligence
Calling it a “fit case to impose costs,” the court ordered the 4th respondent (SHO, ) to personally pay ₹10,000 to the , within one week. The costs serve as a and a reminder of the police’s duty to meticulously verify age before arrest and production.
The ruling reinforces the principle that the JJ Act when the accused is a minor, and any deviation — even by a magistrate — renders the detention illegal. It also highlights the vulnerability of children from disadvantaged backgrounds who may be unable to assert their rights without family support.
Key Observations
- “We are of the considered opinion that the Order of Remand dated directing the son of the petitioner to is .”
- “It is the duty of the respondent-police officials to verify the exact date of birth of the petitioner’s son with reference to the material obtained by them.”
- “This Court is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition, was found to be not clear to concerned police.”
The writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated, and all pending applications were dismissed.
