Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Remand of 17-Year-Old, Slaps Rs 10,000 Cost on SHO for Ignoring Juvenile Status

The Andhra Pradesh High Court found that police obscured a boy’s Aadhaar date of birth and produced him before a Magistrate instead of the Juvenile Justice Board, rendering his remand illegal and without jurisdiction.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar, on 31 August 2026 set aside the remand of a minor boy to Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, after finding that the Samisragudem Police had produced him before a Civil Judge rather than the Juvenile Justice Board. The court further directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, to release the boy forthwith and imposed personal costs of Rs 10,000 on the Station House Officer, Samisragudem, payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee within one week. The bench found that the date-of-birth field in the Aadhaar Card furnished to police had been obliterated, and that the boy’s age had been misrepresented as 19 years before the Magistrate who passed the remand order.

How the Boy Came to Be in Central Prison

On 15 August 2026, at about 5.35 p.m., six persons arrived at the home of the petitioner, Veligatla Venkata Narayana, at D.No.7-120, Gowda Ramalayam, Undrajavaram Mandal, Mortha, East Godavari District. They left without disclosing their identity and took the petitioner’s son with them.

Three days later, on 18 August 2026, the boy made a call from Mobile No. 94907 03020 and asked his father to send Aadhaar Card details over WhatsApp. The petitioner was then asked to attend Samisragudem Police Station. There, he learnt that the 4th respondent-police had already registered Crime No. 106 of 2026 against his son and others on 17 August 2026 for offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

On 19 August 2026, the boy and other accused were produced before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvuru, functioning as FAC Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole. The Magistrate remanded the boy to judicial custody in Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram, till 1 September 2026.

The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026 before the High Court at Amaravati seeking, among other things, a declaration that the arrest and remand were illegal, setting aside of the Remand Order dated 19 August 2026, immediate release, and a direction that his son be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The Juvenile Justice Issue: Wrong Forum, Wrong Age on Record

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veerla Sateesh Kumar, placed the boy’s date of birth as 12 September 2008. As on 31 August 2026, that made him 17 years, 11 months, and 19 days old — a minor. The alleged offence occurred on 20 July 2026, by which date the boy had still not turned 18.

The petitioner’s affidavit stated that in the Aadhaar Card details sent to police, the date-of-birth field had been removed or obliterated, and his son’s age was thereafter represented as 19 years before the Magistrate. The affidavit also alleged that the boy was coerced not to disclose his age or any ill-treatment before the Magistrate.

Counsel argued that the Juvenile Justice Board, not the Civil Judge, was the competent authority to deal with a Child in Conflict with Law. The police, he submitted, were well aware of the statutory requirement under the Act but chose to produce the boy before the Magistrate. The Remand Order dated 19 August 2026 was therefore passed without jurisdiction.

Police Defence: Blur in the Aadhaar Image

Counsel for the respondent-police offered a different account. Neither the petitioner nor his son, it was submitted, had disclosed the correct date of birth at the time of arrest. No complaint regarding age or coercion had been made before the Magistrate. The counsel further submitted that the Aadhaar details received by police were slightly blurred, particularly the last digit of the year of birth, and police had proceeded on the understanding that the year of birth was 2006, not 2008.

On that basis, the respondents contended that the police action and the Magistrate’s Remand Order could not be faulted.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench was not persuaded. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner produced a certified copy of the Aadhaar Card obtained from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole. The bench examined an enlarged copy and observed that the date-of-birth field was missing — only the name of the boy’s father remained visible.

The court expressed that it was “at a loss to understand” how the date of birth, clearly visible in the material filed with the writ petition, appeared unclear to the police. The bench held that it was the duty of the police to verify the exact date of birth from available material. The bench equally found fault with the Magistrate: even the Junior Civil Judge (FAC) was “expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand.”

Counsel for the respondents ultimately conceded the point: the material made clear that the date of birth was 12 September 2008, not 12 September 2006.

With that concession, the bench held that the Remand Order dated 19 August 2026 was illegal, unsustainable, and without jurisdiction to the extent it applied to the petitioner’s son. The court clarified, however, that setting aside the remand would not prevent the respondent-authorities from taking lawful action against the boy in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Personal Cost on the Station House Officer

The bench treated the case as a fit one for imposing costs. Respondent No. 4, the Station House Officer, Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, was directed to personally pay Rs 10,000 to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within one week of receipt of a copy of the order.

The imposition of personal costs on the SHO, rather than on the State, reflects the bench’s assessment that the statutory duty to route a juvenile through the Juvenile Justice Board rested squarely on the arresting officer.

Order

The High Court allowed Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026 in the following terms:

• The Remand Order dated 19 August 2026 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvuru, FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole, in Crime No. 106 of 2026, is set aside to the extent it applies to the petitioner’s son.
• The 7th respondent, Superintendent of Jail, Central Jail, Rajamahendravaram, is directed to take immediate steps to release the boy forthwith from Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.
• The SHO, Samisragudem Police Station, shall personally pay Rs 10,000 to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within one week of receipt of this order.
• The order does not preclude the respondent-authorities from proceeding against the boy in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• All pending applications stand dismissed.