JJ Act | Allahabad High Court Orders Release of Detenue, Holds Child Alleged To Be In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain directed the release of a detenue from Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj, holding that his continued custody violated the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court clarified that an accused who asserts being a child at the time of the alleged offence cannot be placed in jail or police lockup even while an inquiry into their age is pending before any Court or the Juvenile Justice Board. It further held that a child in conflict with law, or alleged to be so, may not be kept in jail until attaining 21 years of age.
The habeas corpus petition was filed seeking the release of a person detained in Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj, on the ground that his continued custody was illegal under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner, represented by another individual claiming to be a social worker, contended that he had been in custody since April 2017 following his arrest in connection with an offence registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that he, along with his mother and brother, had caused the death of his elder brother. A charge sheet was filed in May 2017, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court in July 2017, where charges were framed in November 2017.
Before the trial court, the accused claimed that he was a minor at the time of the alleged offence, stating his date of birth as 13 December 2002 and producing school records to support this. The Principal of the concerned primary school confirmed this date as recorded in the scholar register. Based on the entry, the petitioner was 14 years, three months, and 19 days old on the date of the incident. The trial court, instead of determining the age itself, referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board at Prayagraj. The Board, after considering the scholar register and the Principal’s statement, declared him a juvenile and communicated its decision to the trial court and the jail authorities.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a juvenile cannot be kept in custody beyond three years and that continued detention was unconstitutional. The State opposed the plea, maintaining that the detention was pursuant to a judicial order and could not be challenged through a habeas corpus petition, and that the petitioner could instead seek bail under Section 12 of the same Act. The Court examined the submissions with reference to the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and prior judicial precedents.
The Court observed that "a writ of habeas corpus is not to be entertained when a person is committed to judicial custody by a competent court by an order which prima facie does not appear to be without jurisdiction or passed in an absolutely mechanical manner or wholly illegal."
Referring to Supreme Court precedents in Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2013) and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974), the Bench recorded that "in a habeas corpus petition, it is the legality of the present detention which is to be examined and the merits of detention before filing of the petition are not relevant." The Court also cited Sapmawia v. Deputy Commissioner, Aijal (1970) to note that continued detention can be declared unlawful even if the initial detention was valid.
The judgment elaborated on relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, including Sections 1(4), 9, 10, 14, and 18. The Court noted that the Act overrides all other laws concerning children in conflict with law and prohibits their lodging in jails or police lockups. It stated that "a child in conflict with law can be lodged in jail only when he has committed a heinous offence and is also above the age of sixteen years on the date of the commission of offence and the Board and Children’s Court have decided that there is need for trial of the child as an adult."
The Bench found that the trial court had failed to conduct an inquiry under Section 9(2) and had mechanically referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, which lacked jurisdiction to determine age when the claim of juvenility is raised before a court. Consequently, the Court held that "the order dated 15.5.2025 passed by the Board determining the age of petitioner no. 1 is without jurisdiction and a nullity." However, it stated that even pending inquiry, the petitioner could not be detained in jail.
The judges stated that "the detention of petitioner no. 1 in jail became illegal after he raised a claim that he was a child at the time the offence was committed." They further recorded that a person claiming to be a child under the Act cannot be placed in a jail or police lockup even during the inquiry regarding age.
Addressing the State's contention regarding bail, the Court observed that Section 12 of the Act provides for bail only when the child is produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Since the petitioner had not yet been forwarded to the Board, the Bench held that he could not apply for bail under that provision. It concluded that "the present detention of petitioner no. 1 in Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj, is illegal. Thus, a writ of habeas corpus is to be issued for release of petitioner no. 1 from Naini Central Jail."
The Division Bench directed that "the Jail Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj is directed to set at liberty the petitioner no. 1, i.e., Pawan Kumar. The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj shall ensure that the petitioner no. 1 is produced before the trial court which shall determine the age of the petitioner at the time of the commission of offence in accordance with Section 9(2) of the Act, 2015."
“In case, the trial court is of the opinion that during the process of inquiry regarding his age the petitioner no. 1 is required to be kept inpreventive custody, he may be placed by the trial court during the intervening period in a place of safety as defined in Section 2(46) of the Act, 2015. “If the trial court records a finding that on the date of the commission of offence, the petitioner no. 1 was a child in conflict with law, the petitioner no. 1 shall be forwarded to the Board which shall take appropriate action in accordance with Sections 14, 15, and 18 of the Act, 2015."
“If the trial court records a finding that on the date of the commission of offence, the petitioner no. 1 was a child in conflict with law, the petitioner no. 1 shall be forwarded to the Board which shall take appropriate action in accordance with Sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Act, 2015 depending on whether the age of petitioner no. 1 as determined by the trial court was below or above 16 years of age on the date of commission of offence. Needless to say that in case, the trial court records a finding that the petitioner no. 1 was not a child on the date the crime was committed, the trial court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC:173248-DB
Case Number: Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 497 of 2025
Bench: Justice Salil Kumar Rai, Justice Sandeep Jain
