Juvenile Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry: Allahabad High Court Declares 8-Year Custody of Murder Accused Illegal

“Trial Court, Not Juvenile Justice Board, Is Competent to Decide Age Under Section 9(2) JJ Act” –  In a landmark habeas corpus ruling Allahabad High Court held that the continued judicial custody of Pawan Kumar, an accused under Section 302 IPC, who was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), was patently illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of his fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Delivering judgment in Pawan Kumar (Corpus) & Nazia Nafees v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 497 of 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain ruled that:

“A child in conflict with law or alleged to be in conflict with law cannot be lodged in a jail till he attains twenty-one years of age either during the inquiry regarding determination of his age or when he is found to be a child in conflict with law.”

The Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, directing the Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, to release Pawan Kumar immediately, and ordered his production before the trial court for proper age determination under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

“When Claim of Juvenility Is Raised Before Court, Only the Court Has Jurisdiction to Decide It – JJB Order Is Nullity”

The core legal controversy in the case stemmed from whether the Juvenile Justice Board had jurisdiction to determine Pawan Kumar’s age, once the claim of juvenility was raised before the trial court during pendency of trial.

The High Court answered this question unequivocally:

“It is apparent from Sections 9(2) and 9(3) of the Act, 2015 that the claim of being a child shall be decided by the Court and not the Board if the claim is raised before the Court.”

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602, the Bench held that the trial court had mechanically and improperly forwarded the age determination matter to the JJB, without recording any findings as required under Section 9(2). Consequently, the order of the Board dated 15.05.2025 was held:

“Without jurisdiction and a nullity. The order of the Board confers no right on the petitioner no. 1.”

“Judicial Remand No Shield Where Detention Is Unlawful or Mechanical” – Habeas Corpus Held Maintainable

Although judicial custody is ordinarily a bar to maintainability of a habeas corpus petition, the Court carved out an exception based on precedents including Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314 and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1974) 4 SCC 141.

The Court held: “In a habeas corpus petition, the legality of the present detention may be examined even if the initial detention was legal. A writ would be issued where the present detention is found to be illegal, even if it was valid at inception.”

The Court found that the trial court never exercised its jurisdiction to determine age, as mandated by Section 9(2), and that Pawan Kumar’s continued remand without such inquiry was illegal and mechanical, making habeas corpus relief legally sustainable.

“Even During Inquiry, No Juvenile Can Be Lodged in Jail” – Section 10(1) JJ Act Emphatically Applied

The High Court emphasized the absolute prohibition in Section 10(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act against placing a child in conflict with law in jail or police lock-up. It ruled that this statutory bar applies even during pendency of age determination.

The Bench observed: “A person who claims himself to be a child under the Act, 2015 cannot be lodged in jail even during inquiry regarding his age either by the Court or the Board.”

It was held that once Pawan Kumar raised his claim of juvenility, his continued custody in jail became violative of the Act, regardless of the fact that the claim was raised years after arrest.

The Court clarified that: “The present detention of petitioner no. 1 in Naini Central Jail is illegal. Thus, a writ of habeas corpus is to be issued.”

Violation of Article 21 – 8-Year Custody of Juvenile Violates Maximum Detention Permissible Under JJ Act

Section 18 of the Juvenile Justice Act caps the period for which a juvenile can be kept in custodial care at three years, even in cases involving heinous offences.

In this case, Pawan Kumar had already spent over 8 years in judicial custody, a fact the Court declared to be: “Contrary to the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act and violative of his right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The High Court categorically rejected the State’s contention that the petitioner should pursue bail under Section 12 of the Act, pointing out that he had not even been forwarded to the Board, nor placed in a “place of safety” as mandated by law.

Final Directions of the Court – Jail Authority Directed to Release, Trial Court to Decide Age

In a structured and immediate set of directions, the Allahabad High Court held:

1. Pawan Kumar to be released forthwith by the Superintendent of Naini Central Jail.

2. Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj to produce him before the trial court, which shall determine his age under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

3. If the trial court requires interim protective custody, the petitioner shall be kept in a “place of safety” as defined under Section 2(46).

4. If the petitioner is found to be a juvenile on the date of offence, he shall be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for action under Sections 14, 15 and 18 of the Act.

5. If found not to be a juvenile, the trial shall proceed as per law.

The writ petition was thus partly allowed, but the direction to release the petitioner from jail was immediate and unconditional.

A Crucial Ruling for Juvenile Justice Jurisprudence

This judgment not only restores liberty to an individual illegally detained, but also significantly reinforces the primacy of statutory protections for juveniles, even when the claim of juvenility arises late into the criminal process.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling will serve as an important precedent on two pivotal points of law:

1. Only the court where juvenility is claimed can decide age under Section 9(2) — the Juvenile Justice Board has no jurisdiction if the claim is made before the court.

2. Detention of a juvenile — even during pendency of age inquiry — in jail violates the Juvenile Justice Act and the Constitution.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025