Kethavath Jyothi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
- Court
- High Court of Andhra Pradesh
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 22154 OF 2026
Between:
Kethavath Jyothi
.....PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others
.....RESPONDENTS
DATE OF JUDGMENT RESERVED : 17.09.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 13.10.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT UPLOADED : .10.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No
_______________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J
______________________
ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
&
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
+ WRIT PETITION NO: 22154 OF 2026
% 13.10.2026
Between:
Kethavath Jyothi
.....PETITIONER
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others
.....RESPONDENTS
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli
Counsel for the Respondents : J.Krishna Praneeth
< Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1. D.B. Crl.A.No.27 of 2019 of the High Court of Rajasthan
2. W.P.(Crl.) No.102 of 2007
3. 2024:BHC-AS:24700-DB
4. WP(Crl) No.102 of 2007 SC decided on 10.02.2020
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 22154 OF 2026
ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
Heard Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the respondents.
2. This writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner(paternal aunt of three
detenues) named in para-2 of the affidavit said to be the minors under the
age of 18 years, for their production and pass such other orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice.
3. The petitioner’s case is that the detenues 1 & 2 are pursuing the
Eleventh Standard at Sri Chiatanya College and S.K.B.R. College,
respectively, while detenu No.3 is assisting his parents in agricultural
work. All the detenues are children within the meaning of Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘JJ Act’). Respondent
No.5 in the writ petition – the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police,
Nagarjunasagar Police Station registered Crime No. 52 of 2026 on the file
of Nagarjunasagar Police Station, Palnadu District, dated 31.07.2026 for
4
the offences punishable under Section 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 118(1) read
with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’).
The detenues were arrayed as Accused Nos.8 to 10 respectively.
4. The petitioner’s further case is that respondent No.5 after
registering the crime conducted investigation and apprehended the
detenues on 02.08.2026 at about 10.00 am and they were produced
before the Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur on 03.08.2026 at about 2.00
pm., and upon consideration of the material placed the Juvenile Justice
Board rejected the request of the police for remand of the detenues. The
petitioner’s further case is that the respondent No.5 had no authority in
law to retain the detenues in police custody or under police control. In the
absence of valid remand order passed by a competent judicial authority,
the continued custody of the detenues became wholly unauthorized and
illegal. However, the detenues were neither released nor handed over to
their parents, lawful guardians, relatives or any person legally entitled to
receive their custody. Respondent No.5 shifted detenu No.1 to Ladies
Hostel and detenues 2 & 3 to a Boys Hostel, under police control and
surveillance on 03.08.2026 onwards. Such continued confinement had
no sanction of law, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 21
& 22 of the Constitution of India. It violates the safeguards envisaged
under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
5
which mandates that every child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be
dealt with strictly in accordance with the procedural laws under the
supervision of the Juvenile Justice Board.
5. Learned Government Pleader referred to the counter affidavit and
submitted that the detenues voluntarily surrendered before the
respondent No.4 on 02.08.2026 at about 10.00 am, after which they were
duly apprehended by following the procedure prescribed under Sections
47(1) & 48(1) of BNSS and under the relevant provisions of Juvenile
Justice Act. They were thereafter produced before the Juvenile Justice
Board, Guntur on 03.08.2026. On perusal of the material placed on
record, Juvenile Justice Board directed the Investigation Officer to
produce the detenues after filing the proof of thier age. Immediately
respondent No.4 obtained the study certificate of detenu No.2 but in so
far as detenu No.3 is concerned, as he was not pursuing his studies, the
Investigating Officer has produced the detenu No.3 before the Medical
Officer, GGH, Guntur for age determination test. The Medical Officer
insisted for legal guardian. Inspite of several requests made by
respondent No.4 on 03.08.2026, 04.08.2026, 05.08.2026, the
parents/blood relatives of detenues 2 & 3 did not come forward to
cooperate with the police and could not provide any document confirming
the age of those detenues. During the interregnum: a) Alleged detenue
6
No.1 was placed at the Sakhi One Stop Centre, Guntur (a Government-
run institution meant for safe custody of women and girls) for her safety
and protection; b) Alleged detenue Nos.2 & 3 were placed at Mathru Sri
Children’s Home, Guntur (a recognised Child Care Institution) and
periodically produced them before the Medical Officer for commencement
of age determination test. On 05.08.2026, the Investigation Officer
produced the detenues 1 to 3 before the Member, Juvenile Justice Board,
Guntur and they were directed to produce the detenues before the
Chairman, Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur on the next day i.e.,
06.08.2026. On 05.08.2026 night, the detenu No.1 was placed at Sakhi
One Stop Centre, Guntur and detenues 2 & 3 were placed at Mathru Sri
Children’s Home, Guntur for safe custody. On 06.08.2026, the police
produced the detenues 1 to 3 before the Chairman, Juvenile Justice
Board, Guntur and thereupon, the Medical Officer was directed to conduct
the age determination test of detenu No.3 by the Chairman, Juvenile
Justice Board, Guntur. Later on, age determination test was conducted by
the Medical Officer and certificate confirmed the age of detenu No.3, i.e.,
about 15 to 16 years. Thereupon, the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge –
cum – Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur passed the order dated 06.08.2026
directing the safe custody of the Children in conflict with law (CCLs) and
pursuant to the said order the detenu No.1 was lodged in Government
7
Observation Home for Girls, Visakhapatnam and detenues 2 & 3 were
lodged in Government Observation Home for Boys, Vijayawada.
6. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Respondent No.4
in the affidavit submitted that the said respondent never retained and did
not at any point of time retain the detenues in police custody after they
were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. The CCLs were kept in
safe custody from 03.08.2026 to 06.08.2026, after producing before the
Juvenile Justice Board, since no Children’s Home for boys was available
at Guntur. The parents of detenu No.1 and the father of detenues 2 & 3
were arrested in connection with the very same Crime No.52 of 2026 and
were remanded to judicial custody. So, the detenues were placed in
recognised institutions for their safety and care, pending appropriate
orders of Juvenile Justice Board. Those detenues were, at any point of
time, not left without lawful custody nor produced before any authority
other than the Juvenile Justice Board and its Chairman. The Violation of
Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been denied. The entire
process from the stage of apprehension of the detenues on 02.08.2026 till
their repeated production before the Juvenile Justice Board on
03.08.2026, 05.08.2026 and 06.08.2026 was carried out strictly as per
law.
8
7. Learned Government Pleader further submitted referring to para-12
of counter affidavit that detenues were in observation homes pursuant to
the custody orders of Juvenile Justice Board and so, the writ petition for
Habeas Corpus was not maintainable. The Police discharged the duties
diligently in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to Children,
in Conflict with Law and in that regard there is no illegality, arbitrariness or
unconstitutionality.
8. The petitioner filed the reply affidavit, and interalia reiterated the
stand in writ petition and submitted that the detenues were apprehended
on 02.08.2026 and were produced before the Juvenile Justice Board,
Guntur on 03.08.2026, 05.08.2026 and 06.08.2026. Learned counsel for
the petitioner referring to rejoinder affidavit submitted that there was no
specific order dated 03.08.2026 authorising the police to retain the
detenues or to place them in the institutions/places arranged by the police
until 06.08.2026. He submitted that without there being any order of
Juvenile Justice Board authorising the police to retain the detenues at the
places, they were kept as per the counter affidavit, there was no such
legal authority for the police.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents
were required to establish the source of authority under which the liberty
of the children was restrained during the period from 03.08.2026 till
9
06.08.2026 and so there was illegal detention. The custody with the police
was unauthorised. In the absence of any order of Juvenile Justice Board
authorising the police to retain the detenues there was no authority for the
police to retain those detenues with CCLS at the place they were kept and
the police authorities ought to have released the detenues immediately or
handed over them to the lawful guardian.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only question
is, of the illegal detention from 03.08.2026 to 05.08.2026 during which
period the detenues were detained at different places without any
authority of law as there was no order from the Juvenile Justice Board.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on:
1
1) Smt. Durga v. State of Rajasthan
2
2) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India & Ors . , in
and
3
3) Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ
Petition No.2372 of 2024.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the police
officer (Assistant-Inspector of Police) who apprehended and produced the
detenues before the JJ Board was not a designated Child Welfare Police
1
D.B. Crl.A.No.27 of 2019 of the High Court of Rajasthan
2
W.P.(Crl.) No.102 of 2007
3
2024:BHC-AS:24700-DB
10
Officer (CWPO) under the G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 11.02.2016 issued
pursuant to the Section 107 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
13. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the
material on record.
14. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
detenues were apprehended on 02.08.2026 and produced on 03.08.2026,
on which date the Juvenile Justice Board rejected the remand. The
learned Government Pleader disputed and submitted that the remand was
not rejected. The Juvenile Justice Board directed the police to place the
age proof, however, the Juvenile Justice Board also did not pass any
order for keepiong the detenues at what place. The police in view of the
above situation, kept them at the places indicated above, which are the
authorised places under the JJ Act.
15. Section 10 of the JJ Act reads as under:
10. Apprehension of child alleged to be in conflict with law - (1) As soon
as a child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such
child shall be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the
designated child welfare police officer, who shall produce the child before the
Board without any loss of time but within a period of twenty-four hours of
apprehending the child excluding the time necessary for the journey, from the
place where such child was apprehended:
Provided that in no case, a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be
placed in a police lockup or lodged in a jail.
(2) The State Government shall make rules consistent with this Act,—
11
(i) to provide for persons through whom (including registered voluntary or non-
governmental organisations) any child alleged to be in conflict with law may be
produced before the Board;
(ii) to provide for the manner in which the child alleged to be in conflict with law
may be sent to an observation home or place of safety, as the case may be.
16. Section 12 of the JJ Act reads as under:
12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict
with law - (1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to
have committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or
detained by the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or
without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under
the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that person
into association with any known criminal or expose the said person to moral,
physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would defeat the
ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for denying the bail
and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail under
sub- section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such officer shall
cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in such manner as
may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the
Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place
of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the
inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced before
the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
12
17. Sub-Section 10(2) provides that the State Government shall make
rules consistent with the Act interlia to provide for persons through whom
any child alleged to be in conflict with law may be produced before the
Board.
18. Section 2(18) defines ‘Child Welfare Police Officer” which means an
officer designated as such under sub-Section (1) of Section 107.
19. Section 107 of the JJ Act provides as under:
“ 107. Child Welfare Police Officer and Special Juvenile Police Unit –
(1) In every police station, at least one officer, not below the rank of assistant
sub-inspector, with aptitude, appropriate training and orientation may be
designated as the child welfare police officer to exclusively deal with children
either as victims or perpetrators, in co-ordination with the police, voluntary and
non-governmental organisations.
(2) To co-ordinate all functions of police related to children, the State
Government shall constitute Special Juvenile Police Units in each district and
city, headed by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of
Police or above and consisting of all police officers designated under sub-
section (1) and two social workers having experience of working in the field of
child welfare, of whom one shall be a woman.
(3) All police officers of the Special Juvenile Police Units shall be provided
special training, especially at induction as child welfare police officer, to enable
them to perform their functions more effectively.
(4) Special Juvenile Police Unit also includes Railway police dealing with
children.”
13
20. In Smt.Durga v. State of Rajasthan , it was held that constitution of
a Special Juvenile Police Unit in each district head by a police officer not
below the rank of a Dy. S.P. with two social workers having experience of
working in the field of child welfare of whom one shall be a woman, is a
mandate of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on this
judgment contended that, there the investigation was not conducted by a
Special Juvenile Police as warranted by Section 107(2) of the Act and that
was held vitiated. In the present case also he submitted that the detenues
were not produced by the Special Juvenile police before the Board. So
their custody and production was illegal.
21. The State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 11.02.2016,
notified, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 107 by the Act and
thereunder designated, the Additional Superintendents of Police/ Dy.
Commissioner of Police or Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police
Andhra Pradesh as heads of Special Juvenile Police Units (Special
Juvenile Police Units ) under the direct supervision of the respective Unit
Officers in districts, Joint Commissioners / Deputy Commissioners of
Police (Crimes) in Commissionerates and the Station House Officers/Sub
Inspectors of all the Police Stations including Railways, in the State of
Andhra Pradesh as Child Welfare Police Officers.
14
22. G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 11.02.2016 reads as under:
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT
Home - Constitution of Special Juvenile Police Units and designating Child
Welfare Police Officers at all Police Stations in Andhra Pradesh in accordance
with Section 107 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
2015 – Notification - Orders - Issued.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME (SERVICES.I) DEPARTMENT
G.O.MS.No. 12 Dated: 11-02-2016
Read the following:-
From the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, letter
C.No.21/C-71/WPC/CID//2016, dated.04-02-2016.
&&&
ORDER:
In the references read above the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad has furnished proposal for designate the SHOs as Child Welfare
Police Officer in each Police Station and the Additional Superintendent of Police /
Dy. Commissioner of Police or Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police in each
District and City Commissionerate respectively, as the head of Spl. Juvenile
Police Unit (SJPU) in each Unit. Under Section 107 of Juvenile Justice (Care&
Protection of Children) Act 2015, the Government is mandated to create Special
Juvenile Police Units (SJPU) at the District Level and appoint Child Welfare
Police Officer (CWPO) at the Police Station Level to perform duties under
Juvenile Justice (Care &Protection of Children) Act, 2015 while dealing with
juveniles, who are in conflict- with - law and juveniles, who are in need of care
and protection.
2. Government, after careful examination, hereby issue orders to designating all
the Additional Superintendents of Police/ Dy. Commissioner of Police or
Additional Deputy Commissioners of Police Andhra Pradesh as heads of Special
Juvenile Police Units (Special Juvenile Police Units ) under the direct supervision
of the respective Unit Officers in districts, Joint Commissioners / Deputy
Commissioners of Police (Crimes) in Commissionerates and the Station House
Officers/Sub Inspectors of all the Police Stations including Railways in the State
of Andhra Pradesh as Child Welfare Police Officers.
NOTIFICATION
3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 107of the Juvenile Justice
(CPC) Act 2015, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby sets up Special
Juvenile Police Units for the Districts and designates Child Welfare Police Officer
for each of the Police Stations with jurisdiction in co- terminus with the jurisdiction
of their districts/Commissionerates and Police Stations including Railways
respectively as mentioned above.
15
4. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad shall take
initiative for creating child friendly environment in all the Special Juvenile Police
Units and in Police Stations by providing necessary infrastructural facilities. All
the designated Child Welfare Police Officers shall be provided with necessary
training and orientation to safeguard the Rights of Children as envisaged in
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in coordination with
Department of Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare and
Department of Juvenile Welfare, Correctional Services & Welfare of street,
Children, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
5. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad shall issue
suitable instructions to all the Unit Officers of exhibiting the names and units of
Special Juvenile Police Units and Child Welfare Police Officers in the unit
headquarters and police stations at all conspicuous places and to implement the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in
letter and spirit.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA
PRADESH)
Dr. MANMOHAN SINGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAC)
To
The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
The Director, Juvenile Welfare, Correctional Services &Welfare of
Street Children, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
The Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department,
Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
The Commissioner of Printing Stationary and Stores Purchase, Hyderabad (2)
Copies with a request to publish the same in Andhra Pradesh Gazette and send
300 copies directly to the DGP, AP, Hyderabad
The Registrar (General), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
Copy to:
The Principal Secretary to Government, WD,C&DW Department, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad.
//FORWARDED::BY ORDER//
SECTION OFFICER
23. Learned Government Pleader submitted that on the relevant dates
the Police Officer producing child in conflict with law before the Board,
16
was holding the charge of SHO and so was covered under the expression
‘Child Welfare Probation Officer’.
24. In view thereof, the production of the children in conflict with law
was by the ‘Child Welfare Police Officer’.
25. The factual aspects are that the children in conflict with
law/detenues 1 to 3 were apprehended on 02.08.2026 in the offence
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 118(1) r/w 190 BNS. According to
the State Government they had voluntarily surrendered before respondent
No.4 on 02.08.2026 at about 10.00 am. They were produced before the
Board on 03.08.2026. On which date the JJB passed the orders directing
the Investigation Officer to produce the detenues after filing of age proof
of detenues 2 & 3.
26. Learned Government Pleader have filed a copy of docket orders of
the Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur dated 03.08.2026 & 05.08.2026 along
with a memo vide USR.No.106213 of 2023 dated 11.09.2026.
27. It is so evident that from the order dated 03.08.2026 as under:
“03.08.2026
CICL 1 to 3 produced before JJB, Guntur. Perused the record.
Age proofs of CICL 2 & 3 are not produced before this Board while
apprehension of CICL. Hence, the I.O is directed to produce CICL 1 to
3 after filing of the age proofs of the CICL 2 & 3.
17
Aadhar cards will not be considered as age proof for CICL.
Hence returned .”
28. On 05.08.2026, the children with conflict with law were again
produced before the members of the JJB, Guntur, on which date the
following order was passed:
“5.08.2026
CICL 1 to 3 produced before the member of JJB, Guntur.
Age proof of the CICL -2 is compiled.
Age proof of the CICL -3 is not complied .
Further CICL’s reported they have to confession statement before the
member, the member has no authority to record the statements.
As per instructions issued by the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur in
Dis No.5727 dated 26.10.2024 apprehension of CICL is not correct after
6.00 pm because there are no children home for boys in Guntur.
Hence IO is directed to produce the CICL’s on the next day morning
i.e., 06.08.2026 before the chairman JJB, Guntur for necessary
orders, Hence returned.
The guardians of CICLs not appear before the Board.”
29. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission to the
period of detention from 03.08.2026 upto the remand was allowed on
06.08.2026 i.e. the interregnum period.
30. Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 provides that as soon as a juvenile in conflict with law is
apprehended by police, he shall be placed under the charge of the special
juvenile police unit or the designated Child welfare police officer, who
18
shall produce the child before the Board without any loss of time but
within a period of 24 hours of apprehending the child excluding the time
necessary for the journey, from the place where such child was
apprehended. The proviso to Section 10 provides further that in no case,
a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be placed in a police lockup
or lodged in jail.
31. Section 12 sub-Section(1) provides that when any person, who is
apparently a child and is alleged to have committed a bailable or non-
bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by the police or appears or
brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or in any other law for
the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety or
placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of
any fit person. The proviso says that such person shall not be so released
if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely
to bring that person into association with any known criminal or expose
the said person to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s
release would defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the
reasons for denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a
decision.
19
32. Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 of JJ Act provides that if such a
person is not released on bail by the officer-in-charge of the police station,
such officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation
home in such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be
brought before a Board. Similarly sub-Section (3) also provides that when
such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it
shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of
safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of the
inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
33. In Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of
4
Tamil nadu v. Union of India , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as per
Section 10 of the Act, when a child alleged to be in conflict with law is
apprehended by the police, such child should be placed under the charge
of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare officer.
Such authority should produce the child before the Juvenile Justice Board
(in short JJB) without any loss of time but within 24 hours after the child is
apprehended. The proviso to the Section clearly lays down that a child
alleged to be in conflict with law shall not be placed in a police lockup or
lodged in a jail. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that in view of
Section 12 of the Act, even if bail is not granted, the child cannot be kept
in jail or police lockup and has to be kept in an observation home or place
4
WP(Crl) No.102 of 2007 SC decided on 10.02.2020
20
of safety. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is the duty of the JJBs
to ensure that the child is immediately granted bail or sent to an
observation home or a place of safety. Once a child is produced before a
JJB, bail is the rule. The only embargo created is that in case the release
of the child is likely to bring him into association with known criminals or
expose the child to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the
release of the child would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be
denied for reasons to be recorded in writing.
34. Relevant portion from Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages
in the State of Tamil nadu (Supra) by the Hon’ble Apex Court is as
under:
“The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a special enactment meant for protection of
children. Section 10 of the Act, lays down that when any child alleged to be in
conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such child should be placed under
the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare
officer. The Section further provides that such authority should produce the child
before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB for short)Board without any loss of time
but not more than 24 hours after the child is apprehended. The proviso to the
Section clearly lays down that a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall not be
placed in a police lockup or lodged in a jail.
Once a child is produced before a JJB, bail is the rule. Section 12 of the Act
reads as follows :-
12. Bail to a person who is apparently a child alleged to be in conflict with
law.-(1) When any person, who is apparently a child and is alleged to have
committed a bailable or non-bailable offence, is apprehended or detained by
21
the police or appears or brought before a Board, such person shall,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973(2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released
on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation
officer or under the care of any fit person:
Provided that such person shall not be so released if there appears
reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring that
person into association with any known criminal or expose the said person
to moral, physical or psychological danger or the person’s release would
defeat the ends of justice, and the Board shall record the reasons for
denying the bail and circumstances that led to such a decision.
(2) When such person having been apprehended is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the officer-in-charge of the police station, such
officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home in
such manner as may be prescribed until the person can be brought before a
Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the
Board, it shall make an order sending him to an observation home or a
place of safety, as the case may be, for such period during the pendency of
the inquiry regarding the person, as may be specified in the order.
(4) When a child in conflict with law is unable to fulfil the conditions of bail
order within seven days of the bail order, such child shall be produced
before the Board for modification of the conditions of bail.
Sub-section (1) makes it absolutely clear that a child alleged to be in
conflict with law should be released on bail with or without surety or placed
under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of any fit
person. The only embargo created is that in case the release of the child is
likely bring him into association with known criminals or expose the child
to moral, physical or psychological danger or where the release of the child
would defeat the ends of justice, then bail can be denied for reasons to be
recorded in writing. Even if bail is not granted, the child cannot be kept in
22
jail or police lockup and has to be kept in an observation home or place of
safety.
All JJBs in the country must follow the letter and spirit of the provisions of the
Act. We make it clear that the JJBs are not meant to be silent spectators and
pass orders only when a matter comes before them. They can take note of the
factual situation if it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs that a child has been
detailed in prison or police lock up. It is the duty of the JJBs to ensure that the
child is immediately granted bail or sent to an observation home or a place of
safety. The Act cannot be flouted by anybody, least of all the police.”
35. In Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra , it was held that in
no case the child shall be placed in a police lockup or lodged in jail. If the
child is not released on bail by the Officer incharge then he shall be kept
in observation home or place of safety as the case may be or if such a
person is denied bail, then the Board shall send him to observation home
or place of safety which are institutions authorized to temporarily receive a
child so that he can be taken care of and rehabitated under the Act. It was
observed that the detention in observation time or place of safety is only
in the circumstances when the child is not released on bail or when he is
not placed under the supervision of the probation officer or under the care
of any fit person.
36. Observation home as provided in Section 47 of the Act are the
institutions established by the State Government in every district or group
of districts either by itself or through voluntary or non-governmental
organisations, which are registered under Section 41 of the Act for
23
temporary reception, care and rehabilitation of any child alleged to be in
conflict with law, during the pendency of any inquiry under the Act.
37. ‘Place of safety’ has been defined under Section 2(46) which means
any place or institution, not being a police lockup or jail, established
separately or attached to an observation home or a special home, as the
case may be, the person in-charge of which is willing to receive and take
care of the children alleged or found to be in conflict with law, by an order
of the Board or the Children’s Court, both during inquiry and ongoing
rehabilitation after having been found guilty for a period and purpose as
specified in the order.
38. In view of the definition of ‘place of safety’ under Section 2(46) and
the ‘observation home’ under Section 2(47) read with Sections 10 its
proviso, and Section 12, in our view it is clear that it is only when the child
in conflict with law is not released on bail by the officer incharge of police
station in case of bailable offence under Section 12(1) or by the Board, in
case of non bailable offence under Section 12(2) such child shall be kept
in an ‘observation home’ or a ‘place of safety’ to be taken care of during
pendency of the inquiry under the Act. Child in conflict with law cannot be
placed in a Police lockup or lodged in a Jail.
39. The alleged Detenue No.1 was placed at the Sakhi One Stop
Centre, Guntur (a Government-run institution meant for safe custody of
24
women and girls) for her safety and protection and the alleged Detenue
Nos.2 & 3 were placed at Mathru Sri Children’s Home, Guntur (a
recognized Child Care Institution).
40. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid
aspect. He has raised the submission that there was no order of JJB for
placing those detenues in those institutions/places.
41. The orders of JJB dated 03.08.2026 and dated 05.08.2026 do not
show that any specific order for sending of children in conflict with law to
an observation home or a place of safety, was not passed. The bail was
not granted. The remand in specific words was not ordered. But the
children in conflict with law on both the dates of production were
‘Returned’. Children in conflict with law were produced by Police so
‘returned’, means ‘returned to police’ for production on the other date by
the Police ‘Remand’ was not rejected. Once the children in conflict with
law were ‘returned;’ they had to be placed in an ‘observation home’ or a
‘place of safety’ but the JJB did not pass any such order observing that
‘there are no children home for boys in Guntur’.
42. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that placing
the child in conflict with law at the places aforesaid without any order of
the JJB is illegal detention in the custody of Police. This contention
deserves rejection. The detenu/‘child in conflict with law’ on being
25
apprehended were produced within a period of 24 hours of such
apprehension, before the JJB. On this aspect there is no contrary
argument. It is not that they were not so produced. In the light of the
orders of the JJB dated 03.05.2026 & 05.08.2026, the question is what
action or procedure ought to adopted by the police officer, who produced
the children in conflict with law before the JJB which ‘returned’ them to the
Police. Unless the bail was granted, children in conflict with law could not
be set free by the Police of their own and particularly when they were to
be produced again before the JJB. As per the order, the parents or
guardian also did not appear. The Police, under the circumstances, had to
place them at some place.
43. Section 10 of the Act, and its proviso which provides that in no case,
a child alleged to be in conflict with law shall be placed in a police lockup
or lodged in a jail. So the child in conflict with law shall not be placed in a
‘police lock up’ or ‘lodged in a jail’. Admittedly, they were not placed in the
‘police lock up’ or ‘lodged in jail’. Section 12(2) of the Act provides that
when such person having been apprehended is not released on bail
under sub-section (1) by the officer in charge of the police station, such
officer shall cause the person to be kept only in an observation home’ or
‘place of safety’, Sub-Section (3) also provides that When such person is
not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board, it shall make an
26
order sending him ‘to an observation home’ or ‘a place of safety’. The
aforesaid legal provisions make it clear that the child in conflict with law,
not being released on bail, either by the officer incharge of the police
station or by the Board, he shall be kept only in observation home or a
place of safety. There is no observation home in Guntur for boys, is not
disputed.
44. We are of the view that under the circumstances of the present
case, keeping in view the legislative mandate for placing the children in
conflict with law under Sections 12(2) & (3) as also Sections 10 proviso, if
the Police kept the detenues 1 to 3 at the places mentioned above, i.e.,
the Government run institution meant for the safe custody of women & girl
and at Recognised child care institution (the boys), pending enquiry and
for their production again before the JJB, we do not find any illegality in
such action of the Police or even contrary to the mandate of law.
45. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since
there was no order for the detention of the detenues for the aforesaid
places, without the order of JJB, there would be an illegal detention and
the detenues would be entitled for release, does not carry force.
46. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out, on our query
made to him that under the present circumstances, what the police could
have done and where the children in conflict with law could have been
27
placed, he only submitted that the police ought to have released the
children in conflict with law or handed over them to the petitioners.
47. We are not satisfied. Unless the bail was granted, the police could
not release the children in conflict with law and when they were ‘returned’
to the police by order of JJB for production again before the JJB. They
had already been produced before the JJB within 24 hours. If they had not
been produced within 24 hours then certainly their release could be
directed.
48. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, before
parting with the judgment we issue directions:
A) to all the Juvenile Justice Boards in the State of Andhra Pradesh to
ensure that at the time of passing the order in relation to the child
alleged to be in conflict with law, produced before the Board, specific
orders are passed for placing the child to observation home or a place
of safety during the pendency of enquiry, if the bail is not granted. The
JJB should not make simple return to leave the CCL to the police and
to place CCL at the discretion of the police to decide where to place
the CCL pending enquiry, and
B) to the Principal Secretary to the Women, Children, Deferently abled
and Senior Citizens (JJ & Genl) Department, to ensure establishment
of sufficient number of observation homes, at least one each, in every
28
district. Though, an observation home for a group of districts is also
contemplated by the JJ Act, but it would be preferable and in
furtherance with the legal mandate to have atleast one observation
home in each District.
We hope the State shall take necessary effective steps in that
regard.
49. With the aforesaid directions and observations but as the writ
petition is devoid of merit, it is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall
also stand closed.
____________________
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
____________________
ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J
Dated: 13.10.2026
Note: L.R. copy be marked
B/o.
AG
copy to:
1. The Principal Secretary to the Women, Children, Deferently abled
and Senior Citizens (JJ & Genl) Department.
2. All the Principal Magistrates of Juvenile Justice Boards in every Districts.
29
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
WRIT PETITION NO: 22154 OF 2026
Dated: .2026
Note: L.R. copy be marked
B/o.
AG
30
Separate sheet
13.