Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010252032025 2025:GAU-AS:15477 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./1397/2025 OMED ALI S/O AMIR UDDIN, R/O MACHI PARA PART II, P.O. BONDIHANA, P.S. FAKIRGANJ, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S H SIKDAR, MR. S HUSSAIN,MR S HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 14.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.H. Sikdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the state of Assam. 2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, has been Page No.# 2/4 filed by the petitioner, impugning the order dated 29.10.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldai in PRC Case No. 568/2025, arising out of Kharupetia P.S. Case No. 52/2025, under Section 140(2) of BNS, 2023, whereby the trial court had remanded the son of the petitioner, who is the accused in the said case to judicial custody, instead of sending him to an observation home or to other place of safety. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner namely, Shahaj Uddin @ Shazuddin, who is accused of committing offence of kidnapping in the FIR lodged in connection with the said case, is a child in conflict with law as he was born on 24.05.2009 and presently he is only 16 years of age. 4. He submits that the son of the petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case and was sent to judicial custody after his production before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter charge sheet was laid in the said case and the son of the petitioner is still detained behind the bars. 5. He further submits that the petitioner, being the father, raised the plea of juvenility of his son before the trial court by filing an appropriate application on 15.10.2025 by producing the birth certificate of his son, wherein his date of birth has been clearly mentioned as 24.05.2009.However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate initiated an enquiry to determine the plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner and summoned the Joint Director of Gozarjkandi PHC to appear along with the counter folio of the birth certificate/ birth register and all supporting Page No.# 3/4 documents on the next date fixed, i.e. on 29.10.2025. However, the Court instead of complying with the requirement of Section 9 (4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by keeping the son of the petitioner in protective custody, again remanded him back to jail in judicial custody. 6. He further submits that on 27.10.2025, the son of the petitioner was again produced before the trial court. However, on that day also, the Joint Director-cum- Registrar Birth and Death, Gozarjkandi PHC did not appear before the court, the case was fixed on 29.10.2025. 7. Again on, 29.10.2025, the son of the petitioner, namely, Shahaj Uddin @ Shazuddin was produced before the trial court from judicial custody. On that day, again the Registrar of Birth and Death, Gozarjkandi PHC was absent without steps and fresh summons were issued to him and the next date was fixed for production of the accused on 11.11.2025 and another date was fixed for appearance of the Registrar on 01.12.2025. The son of the petitioner was again remanded back to jail. 8. It appears that as per Section 9 (4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, during the intervening period between production of a person who has alleged to have committed any offence and who takes the plea of juvenility and completion of the inquiry, such person may be placed in a place of safety which may not be a jail where adult accused are kept. However, on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial court has overlooked the mandate of the Section 9(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in sending the son of the present petitioner to judicial custody. Page No.# 4/4 9. On perusal of the copy of the birth certificate produced by the petitioner, it is apparent that the son of the petitioner is presently aged about 16 years of age. Hence, unless there is anything apparent on record which may create doubt regarding the claim made by the petitioner, his son ought to have been dealt with under Section 9(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 during the inquiry period. 10. Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent that during the intervening period of conduct of enquiry by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang in PRC Case No. 568/2025, the petitioner shall be released on interim bail of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang with the condition that the interim bail shall continue till the completion of inquiry relating to the plea of juvenility raised by the petitioner. After completion of the inquiry, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, may pass necessary orders of either making the interim bail absolute or any other order as he may deem fit and proper on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Court. 11. This criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant