Juvenile Justice Boards Must Pass Specific Orders For Sending Children To Observation Homes If Bail Is Denied: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed Juvenile Justice Boards in State to ensure that children in conflict with law are placed in observation home or a safe place during the pendency of enquiry in instances where bail is not granted to such children.

It issued the directions while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by the paternal aunt of three children, who alleged that they had been illegally detained after the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) returned them to the police for further production.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar observed:

“Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, before parting with the judgment we issue directions:

A) to all the Juvenile Justice Boards in the State of Andhra Pradesh to ensure that at the time of passing the order in relation to the child alleged to be in conflict with law, produced before the Board, specific orders are passed for placing the child to observation home or a place of safety during the pendency of enquiry, if the bail is not granted. The JJB should not make simple return to leave the CCL to the police and to place CCL at the discretion of the police to decide where to place the CCL pending enquiry, and

B) to the Principal Secretary to the Women, Children, Differently abled and Senior Citizens (JJ & Genl) Department, to ensure establishment of sufficient number of observation homes, at least one each, in every district. Though, an observation home for a group of districts is also contemplated by the JJ Act, but it would be preferable and in furtherance with the legal mandate to have atleast one observation home in each District.”

In doing so, the Court held that in the present case, the police had not acted illegally by keeping the three children in recognised safe institutions, even though the JJB had returned them to the police for further production without specifying where they should be kept pending inquiry.

These directions stem from Sections 10 and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Section 10 requires a child alleged to be in conflict with law to be produced before the Board within 24 hours of apprehension and prohibits keeping the child in a police lockup or jail. Section 12 provides for bail and requires a child who is not released to be kept in an observation home or a place of safety.

The case arose from a criminal case registered by the police on July 31 wherein three children alleged to be in conflict with law were booked as accused. They were apprehended on August 2 in connection with allegations of rioting, attempt to murder and causing hurt with dangerous weapons under BNS. They were produced before the JJB on August 3.

The Board directed the investigating officer to produce them again after furnishing proof of their age. When the children were produced on August 5, the Board directed the officer to bring them before its Chairman the following day for necessary orders.

In the meantime, one child was placed at the Sakhi One Stop Centre in Guntur, while the other two were kept at Mathru Sri Children's Home.

On August 6, after an age-determination test indicated that one of the children was around 15 to 16 years old, the JJB directed that all three be placed in safe custody. The girl was sent to the Government Observation Home for Girls in Visakhapatnam, while the two boys were sent to the Government Observation Home for Boys in Vijayawada.

Challenging their custody during this period, the petitioner contended that the Board had not passed any specific order authorising the police to retain the children or place them in institutions. She argued that their continued custody was illegal and that they ought to have been released or handed over to their guardians.

The State, however, submitted that the children had not been kept in police custody after being produced before the JJB. Instead, they had been placed in recognised safe institutions for their care and protection pending further orders from the Board.

Considering these submissions, the Court noted that although the JJB had returned the children to the police for further production, it had neither granted bail nor rejected remand. The Board's orders required the children to be produced again on a later date.

In these circumstances, the Bench observed that the children had to be kept in an observation home or a place of safety in the absence of bail. However, the Board had not passed a specific placement order, noting the absence of a children's home for boys in Guntur.

“Unless the bail was granted, the police could not release the children in conflict with law and when they were 'returned' to the police by order of JJB for production again before the JJB. They had already been produced before the JJB within 24 hours. If they had not been produced within 24 hours then certainly their release could be directed”, the Court said.

The Bench further noted that the children's parents or guardians had not appeared before the Board. Since the children were required to be produced again and had not been granted bail, the police could not release them on their own.

The Court clarified that the position would have been different if the children had not been produced before the Board within 24 hours of their apprehension. In that situation, their release could have been directed.

While upholding the police action in the circumstances, the Bench emphasised that JJBs must issue specific placement orders rather than leave the decision to the police.

It also directed the State Government to ensure sufficient observation homes, preferably one in every district, to facilitate the safe placement of children pending inquiry.

Finding the habeas corpus petition devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed it.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli

Counsel for the Respondents: J. Krishna Praneeth