Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020005992025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/21/2025 SMTI. SANIYARA BEGUM W/O SAIFUL ALI @ SAIFUL ISLAM, M/O MUBARAK ALI, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS (JUVENILE ON DATE OF ALLEGED OFFENCE) S/O- SAIFUL ALI @ SAIFUL ISLAM PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NIZ BARALA, P.O - AMDAH, P.S. SATRA BARADI, DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM-781325 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA-797001 2:THE SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND HOME DEPARTMENT KOHIMA NAGALAND-797001 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE WOKHA DISTRICT WOKHA NAGALAND-797111 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL WOKHA DISTRICT NAGALAND-797111 5:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE WOKHA POLICE STATION WOKHA DISTRICT-797111 6:THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD (JJB) WOKHA DISTRICT- WOKHA NAGALAND-797111 REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL MAGISTRAT Page No.# 2/8 Advocate for the Petitioner : N.K. MURRY, Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : (S.P. Khaund, J) 12.08.2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. N. K. Murry, for the petitioner’s son ‘X’, name is withheld, as the petitioner’s son has already been declared to be Juvenile in conflict with law vide order dated 12.06.2026, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board of Wokha, Nagaland. The petitioner has preferred an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 102 and 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (for short the “JJ Act, 2015), read with Sections 528, 438, 442 and 187 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any such order. 2. ‘X’ had earlier approached the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as well as concerned jurisdictional court with a plea of juvenility and after his ossification test, it was opined that he was about 18 years of age. The order dated 07.03.2025, reflects that ‘X’ is above 18 years and he is aggrieved by this order and has prayed to declare his detention as illegal. This order was passed in connection with the Wokha P.S. Page No.# 3/8 Case No. 47/2024, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 72/2024 and the petitioner has prayed to declared this order and the order dated 20.03.2025 as null and void. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of forwarding the Juvenile for ossification test instead of considering the documents as per Section 94 (2) (i) (ii) of the JJ Act, 2015. Vide order of this Court dated 30.06.2025, the petitioner’s son was granted bail. Thereafter, this Court passed an Order dated 03.06.2026, which is reflected herein below: “10. Accordingly, we pass the following observations and directions: i. We set aside the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Wokha. ii. We direct the Juvenile Justice Board, Wokha, i.e., the respondent no. 6 to carry out verification as to whether the petitioner's son, i.e., Mubarak Ali was a juvenile on the date of the commission of the offence. In doing so, we grant liberty to the petitioner to place all such documents including the birth certificate which has been enclosed to the present proceedings issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Barpeta bearing registration no. 2396383. iii. We further grant liberty to the Juvenile Justice Board to also carry out verification as regards the authenticity of the said birth certificate and take a decision thereupon. iv. We further observe that till the decision is being taken by the Juvenile Justice Board on the age of the son of the petitioner, i.e., Mubarak Ali, the ossification test results of the Naga Hospital Authority Kohima shall not be given effect to. We further direct the petitioner herein to place a certified copy of this order before the Juvenile Justice Board, Wokha on or before 10.06.2026 along with all such documents to show that the petitioner's son, l.e., Mubarak Ali was a juvenile as on the date of commission of the offence. vi. On the basis thereof, we further direct the Juvenile Justice Board to take a decision as to whether the son of the petitioner, i.e., Mubarak Ali was a juvenile as on the date of commission of the offence, i.e., 16.12.2024 and submit a report before this Page No.# 4/8 Court.” 4. Thereafter, in compliance of the order of this Court, inquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, Wokha, Nagaland and the report was forwarded to this court after verifying the documents including the Birth Certificate and the Birth Register Book by the Juvenile Justice Board. It was held by the Board that the name of the petitioner’s son ‘X’ was found to be registered on 06.02.2012, bearing Registration No. 6/2012. It was also held by the Board that ‘X’ was below 18 years of age at the time of commission of the offence, i.e. on 16.12.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Saroj & Ors. Vs. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. & Ors”, wherein it has been observed that :- “That being the position, as it stands with respect to the determination of age, we have no hesitation in accepting the contention of the claimant-appellants, based on the School Leaving Certificate. Thus, we find no error in the learned MACT's determination of age based on the School Leaving Certificate.” 6. Head learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. K. Angami, who has submitted that after receipt of the report, dated 12.06.2026, from the JJB, Wokha, Nagaland, it is apparent that this matter has become infructuous. It is also submitted that the case may be remanded back to the JJB, Wokha, Nagaland and the matter may be proceeded in terms of Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on the decision of Page No.# 5/8 the Supreme Court in “Shilpa Mittal Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) and Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 787, wherein, it has been held that: “15.The inquiry for serious offences has to be disposed of by following the procédure for trial in summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC", for short). As far as heinous offences are concerned, if the child is below 16 years then the procedure prescribed for serious offences is to be followed; but if the child is above 16 years then assessment in terms of Section 15 has to be made. 16. The above categorisation has been done with a purpose which is reflected in Section 15 of the 2015 Act, which reads as follows: "15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.-(1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 18: Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of Section 101: Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in Section 14." This section provides that if the child offender has committed a heinous Page No.# 6/8 offence, the Juvenile Justice Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to the mental and physical capacity of such child to commit such offence, the ability of the child to understand the consequence of the offence and the offence and the circumstances in which the said offence was allegedly committed. The Board is entitled to take the help of experienced psychologists, psychosocial workers or other experts in the field. The explanation makes it clear that the preliminary assessment is not to go into the merits of the trial or the allegations against the child. The inquiry is conducted only to assess the capacity of the child to commit and understand the consequence of the offence. If the Board is satisfied that the matter can be disposed of by the Board, then the Board shall follow the b procedure prescribed in summons cases under CrPC. 17. Section 19 of the 2015 Act empowers the Children's Court to re-assess the preliminary assessment of the Board under Section 15. It reads as follows: "19. Powers of Children's Court.-(1) After the receipt of preliminary assessment from the Board under Section 15, the Children's Court may decide that- (1) there is a need for trial of the child as an adult as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and pass appropriate orders after trial subject to the provisions of this section and Section 21, considering the special needs of the child, the tenets of fair trial and maintaining a child friendly atmosphere; (ii) there is no need for trial of the child as an adult and may conduct an inquiry as a Board and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of Section 18. (2) The Children's Court shall ensure that the final order, with regard to a child in conflict with law, shall include an individual care plan for the rehabilitation of child, including follow-up by the probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker. (3) The Children's Court shall ensure that the child who is found to be in conflict with law is sent to a place of safety till he attains the age of twenty-one years and thereafter, the person shall be transferred to a jail: Provided that the reformative services including educational services, skill f development, alternative therapy such as counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support shall be provided to the child during the period of his stay in the place of safety. (4) The Children's Court shall ensure that there is a periodic follow-up report every year by the probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or a social worker, as required, to evaluate the progress of the child in the place g of safety and to ensure Page No.# 7/8 that there is no ill-treatment to the child in any form. (5) The reports under sub-section (4) shall be forwarded to the Children's Court for record and follow-up, as may be required." 8. It is further submitted by the learned PP, that the petitioner’s son was found to be above 16 years and below 18 years of age. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the Bar. A perusal of the report of the JJB, Wokha Nagaland, dated 12.06.2026, clearly reveals that the petitioner’s son ‘X’ is declared to be a Juvenile in Conflict with law and his age was found to be below 18 years. The entire Inquiry proceeding has also been forwarded along with the report, which has been scrutinized by this court. 10. It is true that as the petitioner’s son was below 18 years of age at the time of the incident, this present petition has become infructuous. At this juncture, this court is not inclined to interefere or set conditions to be adopted by the Board to hold an Inquiry or mandate procedures to be adopted by the Board in connection with the proceeding against ‘X’. Now, it is for the Board to decide whether, it will proceed as per Section 15 of the JJ Act or not. Thereby, ‘X’ is to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board, Wokha, Nagaland and the Board may proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law. Page No.# 8/8 11. In terms of the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant