JJ Act | AP High Court Orders Release Of Minor Produced Before Magistrate As Adult, Imposes ₹10,000 Cost On SHO

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to the rescue of a minor boy who was allegedly treated as an adult by the police and produced before a regular Magistrate, directing his immediate release from judicial custody and holding that the remand order was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction.

In doing so it imposed Rs. 10,000 cost on the SHO of the concerned police station. 

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 mandates a distinct and child-friendly procedure for dealing with a child in conflict with law. Such a child cannot be subjected to the ordinary criminal process applicable to adult accused persons and is required to be dealt with in accordance with the special procedure prescribed under the Act, including being produced before and dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by father of the minor 17-year-old boy, challenging the arrest and remand of his minor son, in connection with a criminal case.

The police officials had contended that neither the petitioner nor his son had disclosed the correct date of birth at the time of arrest. It was also submitted that no complaint regarding the boy's age, coercion or ill-treatment had been made before the Magistrate. The police claimed that the Aadhaar details received by them were slightly blurred, particularly the last digit of the year of birth, leading them to believe that the boy was born in 2006.

The High Court was not persuaded by the explanation offered by the police. The Court noted:

“While it is the duty of the respondent-police officials to verify the exact date of birth of the petitioner's son with reference to the material obtained by them, this Court, is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition was found to be not clear to concerned police. Even the learned Junior Civil Judge (FAC) is expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand.”

It thus said:

"Learned counsel representing the respondents fairly submits that it is clear from the material produced on behalf of the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner's son is 12.09.2008 but not 12.09.2006. Under the above said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Order of Remand dated 19.08.2026 directing the son of the petitioner...to judicial custody is illegal and unsustainable as also without jurisdiction. Therefore, the same to the extent of the petitioner's son is set aside and he shall be released forthwith. However, this order would not preclude the respondent-authorities to take action, in accordance with the provisions of the Act.”

The petitioner contended that his son was born on September 12, 2008, aged about aged about 17 years 11 months and 19 days and was therefore below 18 years of age both on the date of the alleged offence and and on the date of his remand.

The petitioner alleged that although the police had been furnished with the boy's Aadhaar details, the portion relating to his date of birth had been removed or obliterated and his age was represented before the Magistrate as 19 years. It was further alleged that the child was coerced into not disclosing his age or the alleged ill-treatment before the Magistrate.

The petitioner contended that the police officials, despite being aware of the statutory requirement, produced the boy before the regular Magistrate even though the Juvenile Justice Board was the competent authority to deal with a Child in Conflict with Law.

The High Court consequently set aside the remand order insofar as it concerned the minor and directed his release forthwith. At the same time, the Court clarified that its order would not prevent the authorities from taking further action against the child in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court also found the matter to be a fit case for imposing costs and directed the Station House Officer, Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, to personally pay Rs. 10,000 to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within one week from receipt of the order.

The Superintendent of Jail was further directed to take immediate steps for the release the minor, who was lodged in Central Prison pursuant to the impugned remand order.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed to the extent indicated by the Court.

Case Title: Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Veerla Sateesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: The Advocate General

Click Here To Read/Download Order