Allahabad High Court Seeks Judicial Officer's Explanation For Remanding 'Juvenile' To Jail, Summons Arresting Cops

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant also sought a personal affidavit from the concerned Judicial Magistrate seeking his explanation for approving the judicial custody without verifying the juvenile's age.

The Court noted that, apart from overlooking the age of the juvenile, who was below 17 years at the time of lodging of the FIR, the Magistrate also overlooked the fact that the offences [Sections 303 (3) BNS & 317 BNSS] carried a maximum punishment of 3 and 5 years, respectively.

For context, under the Supreme Court's ruling in the Satender Antil case, 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 High Court stressed that had the Magistrate simply verified the age, the minor could never have been sent to judicial custody.

The bench also questioned the arresting officers for failing to verify the boy's age, even though another co-accused in the same FIR had already been identified as a juvenile. Furthermore, the bench noted, the grounds of arrest were never communicated to the petitioner.

Bizarrely, as the HC's order notes, when the police officials sought the petitioner's remand on June 2, 2026, the Magistrate granted a 14-day remand "up to May 16, 2026". The bench called this error "beyond comprehension".

The court observed that the remand order was passed on a "printed format" and showed an "absolutely mechanical" approach without the application of the judicial mind.

The bench further noted that the Magistrate seemingly passed the order without perusing the order-sheet, which, the Court said, might have been written by his Reader or Peshkar.

Taking a stern view of these multiple violations, the High Court directed the Registry to inform the jail authorities via Fax or Radiogram so the boy could be released forthwith.

The bench called for the Judicial Magistrate's explanation and summoned the concerned police officers to appear in person on the next date of hearing and file personal affidavits.

It also ordered the remand Magistrate to file a personal affidavit explaining why the Supreme Court's judgment in the Satender Antil case was blatantly flouted and why he had not carefully looked into the details of the accused whose remand was sought.

The bench remarked that "it would take it seriously that a juvenile has been sent for judicial custody granting remand to the arresting authority not once, but by means of three orders as on today and that too in a case where the maximum punishment is three years and five years respectively”.

The bench also warned that if it does not find the explanation of the cops plausible and proper, appropriate orders would be passed against them, as they have also flouted Satinder Antil's verdict.