Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Lodged In Jail Pending Age Determination Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

The High Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition alleging that the continued detention of a person, who had raised a claim of juvenility before the trial court, was illegal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain, upon hearing the matter, observed that “a child in conflict with law or alleged to be in conflict with law cannot be lodged in a jail till he attains twenty one years of age either during the inquiry regarding determination of his age or when he is found to be a child in conflict with law.”

Advocate Mohd Salman appeared for the petitioners. The State was represented by the Additional Government Advocate.

Background

An FIR was registered alleging the commission of a serious offence. The petitioner was arrested, remanded to judicial custody, charge-sheeted, and later sent for trial. During the trial, a claim of juvenility was raised by placing reliance on school records indicating that he was below eighteen years of age on the date of the alleged incident.

However, instead of conducting an inquiry under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the trial court merely forwarded a communication to the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board, acting upon that letter, passed an order declaring him a juvenile.

A copy of the Board’s order was communicated to the prison authorities, yet the accused continued to remain in jail. The habeas corpus petition was thereafter filed seeking release on the ground that continued detention was illegal under the scheme of the Act.

The State, however, contended that the detention was a result of judicial remand and that the petitioner was free to seek bail.

Court’s Observation

The Allahabad High Court, at the outset, held that a habeas corpus petition was maintainable to examine the legality of continued detention even if the initial custody had been ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The Bench then proceeded to note that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is a complete, self-contained legislation and that Section 1(4) gives it an overriding effect. It was observed that Section 2 defines a “child in conflict with law” as a person below eighteen years on the date of the offence, while Section 10 expressly prohibits lodging such a child in a police lockup or jail.

The High Court held that this protection extends even when a claim of juvenility is under inquiry, because the statute contemplates placement in a “place of safety” during the inquiry.

The Bench further observed that the trial court had failed to comply with Section 9(2) of the Act, which obligates the court itself to conduct the age-determination inquiry and record a finding based on evidence. Forwarding the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board through an administrative communication, the Bench stated, was legally unsustainable, therefore rendering the Board’s declaration without jurisdictional foundation.

Even so, the Court held that once the plea of juvenility was raised before the trial court, Section 9(4) came into effect, mandating that the person could not have been kept in jail thereafter.

The Bench also rejected the argument that the petitioner should apply for bail, holding that bail under the Act is applicable only when the child is before the Board. Since the petitioner continued to be treated as an adult under trial, the statutory protection was violated.

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court, accordingly, directed that the petitioner be released from jail and produced before the trial court. The trial court was instructed to conduct the age determination inquiry in accordance with Section 9(2) and to ensure that, if custody was considered necessary during the inquiry, he was placed in a “place of safety” and not in jail.

The habeas corpus petition was accordingly partly allowed.

Cause Title: Pawan Kumar and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:173248-DB)

Appearances

Petitioners: Advocates Mohd Salman, Nazia Nafees

Respondents: Additional Government Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment