Case Name: Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Andhra Pradesh High Court

Factual Background

The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the arrest and remand of his minor son in connection with Crime No. 106/2026. He sought a declaration that the arrest and remand were illegal and requested that his son be dealt with strictly under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Rules framed thereunder.

According to the petitioner, his son had been born on 12 September 2008 and was therefore approximately 17 years and 11 months old when the High Court heard the matter. The alleged offence had occurred on 20 July 2026, when he was unquestionably below 18.

The petitioner alleged that police officials had obtained his son’s Aadhaar details but that the date-of-birth portion had been removed or obscured. The child’s age was subsequently treated as 19 before the Magistrate. It was further alleged that the child had been coerced not to disclose his age or ill-treatment. Despite the child’s minority, he was produced before a Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.

The police argued that neither the petitioner nor his son had initially disclosed the correct date of birth and that the Aadhaar copy received by them was unclear, leading them to believe that the year of birth was 2006 rather than 2008.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court rejected the police explanation. Upon being shown a certified and enlarged copy of the child’s Aadhaar card, the Court noted that the date of birth was not available on the copy produced before the police. However, the Court observed that the child’s date of birth was clearly ascertainable from the material filed before the High Court.

The Court emphasised that it was the duty of the police authorities to verify the child’s exact date of birth from the available material. The Court also observed that the Magistrate was expected to exercise appropriate attention while passing the remand order.

Once the respondents themselves accepted that the child was born on 12 September 2008, the High Court concluded that the remand order was legally unsustainable. The Court specifically held that the Juvenile Justice framework had to govern the treatment of the child.

Importantly, the Court did not hold that the child could never be proceeded against for the alleged offence. Rather, it held that any further action had to be taken in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

Order of the Court

The High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of the minor son. It set aside the remand order dated 19 August 2026 as illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and directed his immediate release. The Court expressly clarified that this would not prevent the authorities from taking further action in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

The Court also imposed ₹10,000 costs on the Station House Officer, payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee within one week.

Key Takeaway

Age verification is a critical legal safeguard when dealing with a child in conflict with law. Police and judicial authorities cannot disregard or inadequately verify reliable age documents and then subject a minor to the ordinary criminal process. Once minority is established, the child must be dealt with through the statutory Juvenile Justice framework.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa