1 2026:CGHC:22720-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1064 of 2026 Shailendra Kerketta S/o Paulose Kerketta Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Ulkiya (Barpara) Police Station- Sitapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Farsabahar District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 14.05.2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, National Investigation Agency Act, Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 18/2024, whereby the application filed by the appellant for transfer of case to Children’s Court was dismissed. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24/08/2019, the complainant Samal Sai lodged a report before the Police Station Farasbahar alleging that, his minor daughter went missing from 19/07/2019 after she left the house to buy clothes from Tapkara and thereafter she called him on 23/08/2019 and informed him that, she was taken to Delhi by the present appellant and one Ajay and have abandoned her. On such complaint, the Police registered the FIR bearing Crime No.67/2019 for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC against unknown persons. After registration of FIR, the Police started investigation and arrested the present appellant and after completion of investigation filed chargesheet against the present appellant on 06/12/2021 for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 and 370 of IPC. Upon filing of the chargesheet, the matter was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge National Investigation Agency Act, Ambikapur (C.G.), wherein on 12/12/2025, the appellant filed an application for transfer of case to Children's Court on the ground that, on the date of incident i.e. on 19/07/2019, the applicant was aged 17 years and was minor and thus the matter must be heard by the Children's Court. After filing of the application, the State filed its reply to the application for transfer denying the contention of the appellant and submitted that, the date of birth as alleged by the appellant i.e. 12/06/2002 is not genuine and the case of the appellant is not entitled for transfer to Children's Court. The learned Special Judge after hearing the 3 parties, by the impugned order dated 23/02/2026, dismissed the application filed by the appellant holding that, the appellant had failed to prove his date of birth as 12/06/2002 and it cannot be accepted that the appellant was minor on the date of incident. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order dated 23/02/2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA Act, Ambikapur is contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and settled principles governing determination of juvenility. It is submitted that the appellant was born on 12/06/2002 and, therefore, on the date of the alleged incident i.e., 19/07/2019, he was about 17 years of age and thus a child in conflict with law within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appellant has produced his Class 5th marksheet and a birth certificate obtained on 13/06/2015, i.e., more than four years prior to the date of incident, which clearly corroborates his date of birth. Learned counsel would submit that the learned trial Court erred in rejecting the plea of juvenility on hypertechnical grounds despite the production of official documents issued well before the incident. It is contended that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Court is required to determine age primarily on the basis of matriculation certificate, school records, or birth certificate, and only in absence thereof, medical opinion may be sought. Further, the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and the learned 4 Special Judge erred in appreciating the matter as if conducting a full-fledged trial, whereas at this stage only a prima facie determination of age is required. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the application filed by the appellant for transfer of the case to the Children’s Court is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the appellant has not been able to establish his date of birth as 12/06/2002, and the documents relied upon, including the Class 5th marksheet and the birth certificate obtained on 13/06/2015, are insufficient to prima facie prove that he was a minor on the date of the alleged incident. He would further submit that the trial in the present matter is at the verge of conclusion, and allowing the application for transfer at this late stage would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and prejudice the prosecution. He would contend that once the investigation is complete, and the chargesheet has been filed, the trial Court is competent to adjudicate the matter, and the appellant cannot escape trial on technical or unverified grounds. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal of the appellant for transfer to the Children’s Court is not maintainable and the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application should be upheld. 5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the State, as well as the materials on record, it is observed that the primary issue for determination is whether 5 the appellant was a minor on the date of the alleged incident, i.e., 19/07/2019, and whether the matter requires transfer to the Children’s Court. The appellant claims to have been born on 12/06/2002 and has produced his Class 5th marksheet and a birth certificate obtained on 13/06/2015, i.e., more than four years prior to the incident, in support of his date of birth. While the appellant has placed reliance on these documents, the learned trial Court has expressed reservations regarding their genuineness and has not accepted them as sufficient proof of juvenility. 6. It is further noted that the trial is at an advanced stage, nearing conclusion, and any transfer at this stage may delay the proceedings and affect the administration of justice. Balancing the statutory requirement of determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act with the need for expeditious trial, it is concluded that the learned Special Judge, in exercising discretion, was justified in dismissing the application for transfer. The appellant has not established with convincing evidence that he was a minor on the date of the incident, and the trial may therefore continue in the competent Court without transfer to the Children’s Court. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23/02/2026 is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra