Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42953 Court No. - 81 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 76 of 2025 Petitioner :- Yameen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. The report send by C.M.O., Prayagraj, is taken on record. Heard Mr. Vidit Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of a writ or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to recover the petitioner no. 2 (daughter of the petitioner no. 1) namely Amreen from the illegal custody of respondent no. 4 and to produce her before before this Hon'ble Court and to set her at liberty forthwith, in accordance with law. It has been asserted by learned counsel for the petitioners that according to the school leaving certificate of Class V of the corpus issued by Primary School, Pahasoo-II, Bulandshahar the date of birth of the corpus is recorded as 20.03.2011 accordingly, she is aged about 14 years and is a minor. The corpus was produced on 11.03.2025 along with a Aadhar Card having date of birth recorded as 02.04.2009. Learned counsel for the respondents had raised an objection that the said educational certificate was a forged one and has placed reliance upon the Adhaar Card of the corpus having date of birth record as mentioned as 02.04.2009. Accordingly there being discrepancy in the date of birth, therefore, vide order dated 11.03.2025 the corpus was referred for ossification test through C.J.M., Bulandshar and as per the ossification test report, forwarded by CJM, Bulandshahar the radiological age of the corpus was determined as 18-19 years. The said report was highly objected by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the said ossification test report was prepared under the influence of some police officials, therefore, cannot be relied upon. Considering the said fact, the corpus was again referred on 20.03.2025 to the C.M.O., Prayagraj for the fresh ossification test and according to the said report dated 22.03.2025 her radiological age has been determined as above 16 years and below 18 years and her dental age reflects incomplete crown formation and Red formation has not begun. At this juncture, is relevant to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Board Act of 2015 which is quoted as under:- "Section 94. Presumption and determination of age. - (1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person brought before it under any of the provisions of this Act (other than for the purpose of giving evidence) that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age. (2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining— (i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof; (ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board: Provided such age determination test conducted on the order of the Committee or the Board shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order. (3) The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of person so brought before it shall, for the purpose of this Act, be deemed to be the true age of that person." The said provision indicates that only in the absence of (i) and(ii) age shall be determined by ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board. As per the educational certificate of the corpus which is already on record and the age of the corpus is about 14 years. The Aadhar Card is not a valid proof of age. As the corpus has refused to go along with her father, therefore, the corpus, Amreen who is minor, be sent to the Children Home at Bulandshahar until she attains the age of majority. As soon as the corpus attains the age of majority, she can be released according to her desire. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of. Registrar (Compliance) shall ensure the compliance of the order. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Nisha Digitally signed by :- nisha kumari High Court of Judicature at Allahabad