The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside the remand of a 17-year-old boy who was sent to judicial custody after police presented him before a Magistrate as a 19-year-old, holding that the remand order was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction.A Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar held that the boy, who was born on 12.09.2008, was a minor on the date of the offence and was therefore required to be dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.The Court also directed the Station House Officer of Samisragudem Police Station to personally pay Rs 10,000 as costs to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within one week.The order was passed on 31.08.2026, in a writ petition filed by Veligatla Venkata Narayana seeking the release of his minor son from judicial custody.According to the petitioner’s case, six persons came to his residence at about 5:35 p.m. on 15.08.2026, and took his son with them without disclosing their identity.Three days later, on August 18, the boy called his father and asked him to send his Aadhaar Card details through WhatsApp to the mobile number from which he had called. The father subsequently approached Samisragudem Police Station, where he was informed that a criminal case had been registered against his son and others.The case, Crime No. 106 of 2026, was registered on 17.08.2026, under Sections 331(4) and 305-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.On 19.08.2026, the boy and the other accused were produced before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kovvuru, acting as the FAC/Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nidadavole. The Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody until 01.09.2026, and the boy was lodged in the Central Prison at Rajamahendravaram.The father thereafter approached the High Court, asserting that his son was a child in conflict with law and could not have been remanded to judicial custody by the regular criminal court.Father Said Son Was 17, Not 19Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the boy was born on 12.09.2008.Accordingly, on 31.08.2026, he was 17 years, 11 months and 19 days old. More importantly, he was a minor even on 20.07.2026, the date of the offence.The petitioner claimed that when he supplied his son’s Aadhaar details to the police, the portion showing the date of birth had been removed or obliterated. He further claimed that the police represented the boy’s age as 19 before the Magistrate and coerced the child into not disclosing his actual age or the alleged ill-treatment before the court.The petitioner argued that the Juvenile Justice Board was the competent authority to deal with the child and that the police, despite being aware of the statutory requirements, had produced him before the regular Magistrate.On that basis, he sought quashing of the 19.08.2026 remand order and immediate release of his son.Police Said Aadhaar Details Were UnclearThe police disputed the allegation. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that neither the petitioner nor his son had disclosed the correct date of birth at the time of arrest. It was also argued that no complaint had been made before the Magistrate regarding the boy’s age or the coercion and ill-treatment.The police further explained that the Aadhaar details received by them were slightly blurred, particularly the last digit of the year of birth. According to the police, they had therefore understood the year of birth to be 2006 rather than 2008.On this basis, the respondents argued that neither the police action nor the Magistrate’s remand order could be faulted.High Court Questions How Police Failed To Verify AgeThe Division Bench was not persuaded by the police explanation.During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel produced a certified copy of the boy’s Aadhaar Card obtained from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavole. The High Court noted that, in the certified copy furnished before it, the portion relating to the date of birth was not available and only the father’s name could be discerned. However, the Court found it difficult to accept that the police could not ascertain the boy’s age from the material available to them.The bench observed:“It is curious to note that the relevant portion with regard to the date of birth is not available.”The Court then questioned the manner in which the police had dealt with the issue of age.It observed:“This Court, is at loss to understand as to how the date of birth, which is even otherwise clearly visible from the material filed before this Court along with the writ petition was found to be not clear to concerned police.”The Bench also made clear that the Magistrate was expected to examine the matter carefully before passing the remand order.It observed:“Even the learned Junior Civil Judge (FAC) is expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand.”During the proceedings, the respondents ultimately accepted that the material produced by the petitioner established that the boy’s date of birth was 12.09.2008, and not 12.09.2006. This concession became central to the High Court’s determination.The Bench held that, on the admitted date of birth, the boy was a minor and therefore the statutory procedure applicable to a child in conflict with law had to be followed.Remand Order Held Illegal And Without JurisdictionAfter considering the material and the rival submissions, the High Court held that the 19.08.2026 remand order could not be sustained insofar as it concerned the petitioner’s son.The Bench held:“the Order of Remand dated 19.08.2026 directing the son of the petitioner by name ‘ ’ to judicial custody is illegal and unsustainable as also without jurisdiction.”The Court accordingly set aside the remand order to the extent it concerned the minor boy.It directed that he be released forthwith. However, the Bench clarified that the release did not prevent the authorities from taking further action against him in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.The Court therefore did not terminate the criminal proceedings against the child. Instead, it ensured that any further action would have to follow the statutory framework applicable to a child in conflict with law.The High Court also considered the case appropriate for imposing costs. It directed respondent No. 4, the Station House Officer of Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, to personally pay Rs 10,000 to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati.The amount was directed to be paid within one week from receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also directed the Superintendent of the Central Jail, Rajamahendravaram, to take immediate steps to release the boy, who was then in custody pursuant to the 19.08.2026 remand order.The writ petition was consequently allowed to the extent indicated by the Court. The High Court set aside the remand of the petitioner’s minor son, ordered his immediate release and directed that any further action against him must comply with the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules made under it.The order also leaves a clear procedural message: once material indicating that an accused may be a minor is available, the authorities and the court dealing with the person must properly verify the age before deciding the question of custody.The Court’s directions were confined to the petitioner’s son, and the proceedings against the other accused were not disturbed by the order.Case Details:Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026 Veligatla Venkata Narayana vs State of Andhra PradeshDate of Decision: 31.08.2026Appearance:Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Veerla Sateesh KumarCounsel for the Respondents: The Advocate General(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)