NEW DELHI: The Andhra Pradesh high court has set aside the remand of a 17-year-old boy in a criminal case after finding that he was wrongly treated as an adult despite records showing that he was a minor when the alleged offence took place. The court also directed his immediate release and ordered the police officer concerned to pay Rs 10,000 in costs. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.Why did the minor’s father approach the high court?According to the court order, the boy was taken from his residence on August 15, 2026, by six people who did not disclose their identity. He later called his father and asked him to send his Aadhaar details through WhatsApp.The police had registered a case at Samisragudem police station in East Godavari district on August 17 under Sections 331(4) and 305-A of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The boy and other accused were produced before a magistrate on August 19 and remanded to judicial custody until September 1.The boy’s father approached the high court, claiming that his son was born on September 12, 2008, and was therefore 17 years, 11 months and 19 days old as on August 31, 2026. He argued that his son was a minor even on the date of the alleged offence, July 20, 2026, and should have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.The police, however, argued that neither the father nor his son had disclosed the correct date of birth at the time of arrest. They also said the Aadhaar details received by them were unclear and led them to believe that the boy was born in 2006.What did the high court find?A division bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar examined the Aadhaar record produced before it and questioned how the police had concluded that the boy was born in 2006.“While it is the duty of the respondent-police officials to verify the exact date of birth of the petitioner’s son with reference to the material obtained by them, 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. Even the learned Junior Civil Judge (FAC) is expected to bestow attention while passing order of remand,” the high court noted.The court further noted that the respondents themselves fairly accepted that the boy’s date of birth was September 12, 2008 and not September 12, 2006.“Under the above said circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Order of Remand dated 19.08.2026 directing the son of the petitioner to judicial custody is illegal and unsustainable as also without jurisdiction. Therefore, the same to the extent of the petitioner’s son is set aside and he shall be released forthwith. However, this order would not preclude the respondent-authorities to take action, in accordance with the provisions of the Act,” the bench added.The court also held that the case warranted imposition of costs on the police officer concerned.“Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. This court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to impose costs. Therefore, respondent No.4/SHO, Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, shall personally pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the A.P.High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within a period of one (1) week, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,” the bench further added.The high court set aside the August 19 remand order insofar as it concerned the boy and directed his immediate release from Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram.The court clarified that its order would not prevent the authorities from taking action against him in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.It also directed the station house officer of Samisragudem police station to personally pay Rs 10,000 to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati, within one week of receiving the order.What do Sections 331(4) and 305-A deal with?Section 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): This provision deals with house-trespass or house-breaking, and provides punishment in specified circumstances where a person commits such an offence.Section 305-A of the BNS: This provision deals with theft of a motor vehicle or a part of a motor vehicle, prescribing punishment for such theft.