Juvenile Sent To Judicial Custody In 5-Yr Offence: Allahabad High Court Warns Police, Magistrates Against Careless Arrest, Remand
The Allahabad High Court has once again cautioned police authorities and Judicial Officers against a "careless or callous approach" in matters of arrest and remand where the offence carries a maximum punishment of up to 7 years.
The Court's observation was in relation to a habeas corpus plea concerning a juvenile who was repeatedly sent to judicial custody in a case where the maximum punishment was 3 years and, after the addition of another provision, 5 years.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant finally disposed of the plea, where it had earlier found the juvenile's detention prima facie illegal and directed his release from jail forthwith.
Case background
Briefly put, an FIR was lodged against four accused persons, with the petitioner, a Juvenile, shown as accused no. 1. Initially, Section 303(2) BNS was invoked which carries a maximum punishment of three years. However, after the petitioner's arrest, Section 317(2) BNS was added, which carries a maximum punishment of five years. Thereafter, he was repeatedly sent to judicial custody by different jurisdictional magistrates.
Hearing the matter on June 4, the High Court had ordered the immediate release of the juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'.
The Court had referred to the Supreme Court's directions in the Satender Antil case, wherein it was held that an accused must be served with an S.35(3) BNSS notice rather than be arrested in cases involving offences punishable with less than 7 years' imprisonment. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is an exception, not the rule, in offences punishable up to 7 Years.
The Supreme Court has also directed Magistrates not to grant remand mechanically in such cases without examining whether the arrest was legal and whether statutory safeguards were followed.
High Court's observations
Taking note of the mandate of the Top Court, the High Court had, on July 17, observed that the petitioner "should have not been arrested by the police officers nor his remand application should have been filed before the Magistrate concerned".
It had further held that if police arrest a person in such circumstances, the remand Magistrate must carefully examine the provisions under which remand is sought.
"…if the learned Magistrate finds that the alleged offence is having punishment up to seven years, such Magistrate should avoid to grant remand and if there is any extreme circumstances granting the remand, the specific reason to that effect must have been indicated in such remand orders. In the present case, we have seen the remand orders which are absolutely mechanical and prima facie it appears that the concerning Magistrate has not applied his judicial mind", the bench had observed.
The bench had concluded that the remand orders were absolutely mechanical and prima facie, it appeared that the concerned Magistrate had not applied his judicial mind.
Importantly, on July 3, the High Court had come down heavily on the police machinery for blatantly flouting Supreme Court guidelines on arrest, orally remarking that police officers have “nothing to do with reading and studying” the law and choose to act entirely on their own whims.
Read more about the observations here: No Matter What SC Says, Police Act On Their Own Whims: Allahabad High Court Orally Slams Cop For Ignoring 'Satender Antil' Verdict
Apart from this, the Court had found another significant lapse in the present case.
The petitioner's transfer certificate showed his date of birth as April 18, 2009. Since the FIR was lodged on April 27, 2026, he was below 17 years of age at the relevant time. However, neither the arresting authority nor the Magistrate verified his age before the remand was granted.
The Court observed that had the Magistrate verified the petitioner's age, "the minor could have not been sent for judicial custody" by allowing the remand application.
The Court also noted that another juvenile was involved in the case and questioned why the police had not ascertained the petitioner's age when the other person's juvenility had been established.
The Court also found that the ground of arrest had not been intimated to the petitioner, a fact that was not disputed by the State's counsel.
At a subsequent hearing, the police officers were asked why the petitioner had been arrested when the Supreme Court's judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil require safeguards to be followed in offences punishable up to seven years.
The officers could not provide a proper reason for the arrest. They also could not show that any attempt had been made to obtain a bond from the petitioner or his family for cooperation in the investigation.
The Court consequently observed that, prima facie, the police officers had flouted and violated the Supreme Court's directions as well as the relevant provision under Section 35 BNSS.
Now, on August 17, the Court was informed that a show-cause notice had been issued against the Investigating Officer proposing a minor punishment of censure entry.
The police also informed the Court that the petitioner had subsequently been treated as a juvenile and would be given the treatment to which a juvenile accused is entitled. The investigation had been completed for all practical purposes, with the charge-sheet filed against the other accused.
The Court also took note of the explanation and the unconditional apology of the Judicial Officers concerned as it observed that the mistake was bona fide and unintentional.
The High Court accepted the apologies but cautioned the Judicial Officers that they must be careful while allowing such applications and that their "judicial application of mind should be reflected in such orders".
The Court clarified that the caution would not be treated as an adverse remark in their service records.
While finally disposing of the habeas corpus petition, the Court issued a direction concerning offences carrying a maximum punishment of up to seven years.
It directed that the Supreme Court's decisions in Satender Kumar Antil and Arnesh Kumar must be followed by police authorities “in letter and spirit.”
Where a remand application is filed, Judicial Officers have been directed to carefully examine the Investigating Officer's reasons for seeking remand.
"Any careless or callous approach of either Police Officers or Judicial Officers may not be taken lightly", the Court added a strong caution.
It further directed that the plea of juvenility, if it is raised, shall be taken into consideration by concerning authorities, strictly in accordance with law.
"Lastly, the factum of illegal confinement, if it is established, may be taken seriously and erring Official/Officers may not be spared. So, all the concerning Official/Officers shall not take up aforesaid issue lightly", the Court further added.
The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of finally. The Court added that it expects the investigation against the petitioner to be completed and the police report, if any, to be filed strictly in accordance with law.
Advocates Skand Bajpai and Abhyudaya Mishra appeared for the petitioner
AGA Aniruddh Singh appeared for the State
Advocate Shishir Jain appeared for the High Court
Case title - Durgesh Thru. His Stepsister Mrs. Rubi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Affairs Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 628