The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the judicial remand of a 17-year-old boy held in a theft case and ordered his immediate release from jail, declaring the remand order illegal, unsustainable, and outside judicial authority. The court also directed the local Station House Officer to personally pay a penalty of Rs 10,000 for failing to ascertain the boy’s age.
Delivering the ruling on August 31, a division bench of Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T C D Sekhar allowed a petition submitted by the boy’s father and directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, to take prompt measures to release the teenager. The bench instructed the Station House Officer to deposit the Rs 10,000 fine with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee in Amaravati within one week.
Remand Declared Without Jurisdiction
The court revoked the August 19 magistrate order that had remanded the minor to judicial custody until September 1 alongside other accused individuals. The bench observed that because the boy is a child in conflict with the law, proceedings against him fell under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Justice Board pursuant to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
While quashing the jail remand, the High Court noted that authorities are permitted to pursue legal action against the youth in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Dispute Over Date Of Birth Documentation
The order followed a legal challenge by the teenager’s father, who reported that six unidentified persons took his son from their residence before police booked him on theft charges. The father asserted that although his son’s Aadhaar card had been furnished to the police, the section showing the birth year was tampered with or concealed to present the youth as a 19-year-old before the magistrate.
In response, police officials argued that neither the boy nor his father disclosed the correct age at the time of custody. Law enforcement claimed that the copy of the Aadhaar card they received was blurred, particularly the final digit of the birth year, causing investigators to believe the teenager was born in 2006.
Judicial Rebuke Over Police Verification Duties
During the hearing, counsel representing the respondents acknowledged that the documents established the boy’s date of birth as September 12, 2008, confirming he was 17 years old rather than an adult born in 2006.
The bench criticised the handling of the case, stating that police officers bear the legal duty to determine an accused person’s precise date of birth from the available records. The judges remarked that they could not comprehend how the birth date appeared illegible to the investigating officers when it was clearly legible in the documents submitted before the High Court.
