In a strongly worded order, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court ordered the immediate release of a 17-year-old boy from jail, holding that his detention appeared to be illegal and raising serious questions over the conduct of both the police and the remand magistrate.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant expressed shock that a juvenile had been repeatedly remanded to judicial custody in a case carrying a maximum punishment of only three to five years, despite binding Supreme Court directions restricting arrests in such offences.
The Court observed that the arrest appeared to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which mandates that arrests in offences punishable up to seven years should not be made routinely and that magistrates must independently examine the legality of the arrest before authorizing custody.
Court Finds Remand Orders "Mechanical"
After examining the remand orders, the Bench remarked that they appeared to have been passed mechanically without application of judicial mind.
The Court noted that one of the remand orders was issued on a printed format and did not even properly indicate whether remand was being granted to one accused or multiple accused persons.
The Bench further observed that the magistrate had apparently failed to examine the nature of the offences, the legality of the arrest, or even the age of the accused before authorizing judicial custody.
"How Was a Juvenile Sent to Jail?"
One of the most striking observations in the order relates to the petitioner's age.
Referring to the transfer certificate placed on record, the Court noted that the petitioner was born on 18 April 2009 and was below 17 years of age when the FIR was lodged.
The Bench questioned how the police and the remand magistrate failed to verify the age of the petitioner before sending him to jail. The Court observed that while another juvenile involved in the case had been identified as such, no effort appeared to have been made to ascertain the petitioner's age.
The Court remarked that had the age been verified, the juvenile could never have been sent to judicial custody.
Court Questions Police Conduct
The Bench also recorded that the grounds of arrest were allegedly never communicated to the petitioner, a fact which was not disputed by the State during the hearing.
The Court further noted an astonishing discrepancy in the remand proceedings. According to the order, a remand granted on 2 June 2026 purportedly extended custody till 16 May 2026, prompting the Bench to remark that such a situation was "beyond comprehension."
Personal Affidavits and Appearance Ordered
Taking a serious view of the matter, the High Court directed the concerned police officers to file personal affidavits and ordered their personal appearance before the Court on the next date.
The remand magistrate has also been directed to explain why the Supreme Court's directions were not followed and why the details of the accused, including his age and the nature of the offences, were not properly examined before granting remand.
The Court warned that if the explanations furnished by the concerned officers are not found satisfactory, appropriate action may follow.
Immediate Release Ordered
Holding that the detention of the juvenile was prima facie illegal, the Bench directed the jail authorities to release him forthwith as an interim measure pending further proceedings.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on 3 July 2026, when the Court will examine the responses of the police officers and the judicial authorities concerned.
Advocate Skand Bajpai appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Aniruddh Singh represented the State of UP.