JUDGMENT : 1. A short counter affidavit has been filed by Smt. Rajni Dixit, Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar. 2. Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Manoj Kumar Rajput, respondent no. 5, who is the detenue’s father. 3. A short counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State by Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate. It is an affidavit of one Ranveer Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station- Chaubeypur, District- Kanpur Nagar. 4. Let all the aforesaid affidavits be taken on record and numbered by the office. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners waives his opportunity to file a rejoinder. 6. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the matter forthwith. 7. Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 8. Respondent no. 6, is present in person before this Court and he too has been heard. 9. This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Muskan, wife of Abhishek Rajput alias Abhishek Kumar and daughter of Manoj Kumar, through Abhishek Rajput, her husband, who is the second petitioner in this petition claiming that the first petitioner Muskan is unlawfully detained in the custody of the Government Children Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, pursuant to an order of the Child Welfare Committee, Kanpur Dehat dated 14.08.2025. A copy of the said order has been produced during hearing, which is taken on record and shall form part of it. 10. The petitioners, particularly the second respondent, seek the issue of a writ of habeas corpus requiring, by a rule nisi, the respondents to produce the first petitioner, Muskan, before the Court and set her at liberty. The petitioners’ case is that Muskan, the first petitioner, and Abhishek Rajput, the second petitioner, have fallen in love and married each other, as per details shortly to be mentioned. 11. The case of the petitioners is that Muskan is a major aged about nineteen years. She was born on 21.07.2006. Parties have placed on record copies of Muskan’s Aadhar Card which, they say, was issued on the basis of facts and particulars furnished by her parents. 11. The case of the petitioners is that Muskan is a major aged about nineteen years. She was born on 21.07.2006. Parties have placed on record copies of Muskan’s Aadhar Card which, they say, was issued on the basis of facts and particulars furnished by her parents. It indicates her date of birth on the Aadhar Card to be 21.07.2006. The second petitioner is a man aged about twenty one years, his date of birth being 01.01.2004. 12. According, to the petitioners they have married on 02.08.2025 at the Arya Samaj, Dabauli, Kanpur, according to Hindu rites. The marriage was solemnised in the presence of friends and the second petitioner’s brother. Parties’ marriage was registered in the office of the Marriage Registrar, Kanpur Nagar on 07.08.2025. A certificate of marriage dated 02.08.2025, from the Arya Samaj, above mentioned, and a copy of the certificate of registration of marriage, issued by the Marriage Registrar, Kanpur, are annexed together as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. 13. The fifth respondent, who is the first petitioner’s father, is averse to the marriage. He is said to have beaten up the petitioners on 07.08.2025 and threatened to kill the second petitioner, his daughter’s husband. He has made it a point of honour to compel the petitioners to separate. Annoyed with the aforesaid step of choosing a partner for themselves, taken by the parties, the fifth respondent lodged a First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short) with the Police giving rise to Case Crime No. 222 of 2025, under Sections 137(2) and 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Western Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar on 29.07.2025. 14. In the said FIR, the fifth respondent mentioned that his daughter, the first petitioner, who had read up to Class VII and aged seventeen years, in the night intervening 24/25.07.2025, has been taken away by the second petitioner Abhishek Rajput by blandishment. The first petitioner is said to have taken away ornaments worth Rs. 10,000/- and search for the missing girl was reported to be underway. The petitioners’ case is that the FIR is lodged on absolutely bogus facts and against the wishes of parties who have married according to their freewill and wish. The first petitioner’s age, too, has been incorrectly shown, indicating her to be a minor aged seventeen years. In fact, she is nineteen years old. 15. The petitioners’ case is that the FIR is lodged on absolutely bogus facts and against the wishes of parties who have married according to their freewill and wish. The first petitioner’s age, too, has been incorrectly shown, indicating her to be a minor aged seventeen years. In fact, she is nineteen years old. 15. Aggrieved by the registration of the aforesaid FIR, the second petitioner filed a writ petition, being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025, before this Court, wherein, a direction was issued for determination of the prosecutrix’s age through an ossification test. The writ petition, aforesaid, was directed to come up on 09.09.2025 and, till then, the second petitioner, Abhishek Rajput, was granted stay of arrest in connection with crime under reference. 16. It is pointed out that an offence under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been added by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is also asserted in the writ petition that a forged transfer certificate, relating to the detenue, showing her date of birth to be 21.12.2008, was supplied to the Police by the fifth respondent, leading to the addition of an offence under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 17. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the certificate produced from the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar on 01.08.2025, mentioning that the detenue studied there from Class IV to VI, and, the transfer certificate issued, without a date, are all bogus documents and do not reflect the first petitioner’s age correctly. 18. It is also submitted that the ossification test that was done on 8 th September, 2025, pursuant to orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025, has led to a report from a board of doctors, constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur, opining the detenue to be about eighteen years old. A copy of the said certificate dated 08.09.2025 is annexed to the writ petition paper book at page no. 44. 19. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025, has led to a report from a board of doctors, constituted by the Chief Medical Officer, Kanpur, opining the detenue to be about eighteen years old. A copy of the said certificate dated 08.09.2025 is annexed to the writ petition paper book at page no. 44. 19. Considering the provisions of Section 94 (2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, ‘the Juvenile Justice Act’), we summoned the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar in person, together with the scholar register and transfer certificate form relating to the detenue, in original, as also the admission register. Smt. Rajni Dixit, Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar has appeared in person and produced the original records that we ordered. 20. We have perused the scholars register and transfer certificate form, in original, bearing S.R. No. 5228 and admission file no. 53. The scholar register and transfer certificate form, in original, shows that the detenue was admitted to Class VI with the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar on 17.04.2019 and promoted to Class VII on 20.03.2020. She read in Class VII from 01.04.2020 to 30.04.2020. Her name was then struck off the rolls of the school on account of regular and consistent absence. It is true, no doubt, that in the said scholars register and transfer certificate form, drawn on 17.04.2019, the detenue’s date of birth recorded is 20.04.2008 which would make her an all of seventeen years, as on date. 21. We inquired of the Principal as to the basis upon which the detenue’s name was entered in the scholars register and transfer certificate form. She said that the scholar was admitted to the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Primary School in Class IV on 10.04.2017 and passed her Class V on 30.03.2019 after which she was admitted to Class VI on 17.04.2019, as the scholars register and transfer certificate form shows. 22. We further enquired from the Principal as to the basis on which the detenue was admitted to Class IV on 10.04.2017. In response, she said that the detenue was admitted on the basis of her Class I report card from a certain V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur relating to the year2013-14. 23. 22. We further enquired from the Principal as to the basis on which the detenue was admitted to Class IV on 10.04.2017. In response, she said that the detenue was admitted on the basis of her Class I report card from a certain V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur relating to the year2013-14. 23. The Principal produced before us the report card of Class I for the academic session 2013-14 relating to the detenue issued by the V.M. Public School, indicating her date of birth to be 21.12.2008. The said report card, to its face, is a bogus document, inasmuch as on the left hand side, at the top of the card, is mentioned Class I and the session is “20 - 2014”. In the entries, lower down, the Class mentioned is “U.K.G”. Upon a perusal of the contents of the said report card, the Class mentioned is again “U.K.G.” though, on the outer flap, at the left hand side, the Class mentioned is “I”. Also, though the Class mentioned is “U.K.G.” and there is a column for the Section assigned to the student, but that is blank. A screenshot copy of this card is as follows: 24. Surprisingly, the fifth respondent produced another card relating to the detenue from the same V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur where, on the left hand side of the outer flap of the card, the Class mentioned is “U.K.G.” and in the particulars of the student also the Class mentioned is “U.K.G.”, but the academic session is 2012-2013. Inside the card also, the Class mentioned is “U.K.G.”. A screenshot of this too is reproduced below: 25. If we take it that the report card from the V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur, produced by the fifth respondent, is the one which relates to U.K.G. and the one produced by the Principal relates to Class I, it is difficult to reconcile it in the sense that the report card produced by the Principal mentions on the top of the card, on the left hand side, the Class as “Class I”, whereas in all other entries on the outer flap as well as the contents of the card inside, the Class mentioned is “U.K.G.”. These cards appear to have been secured by the fifth respondent in some surreptitious way and are documents of little fidelity. They are utterly undependable. These cards appear to have been secured by the fifth respondent in some surreptitious way and are documents of little fidelity. They are utterly undependable. The detenue’s date of birth, mentioned on these cards, is 21.12.2008. We do not know, on what basis, the detenue’s date of birth has been entered in the rather conflicting report cards issued by the V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur. 26. So far as the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar is concerned, as well as their primary sections, they say that they have recorded the detenue’s date of birth on the basis of the Class I report card issued by the V.M. Public School, Mandhana. We have found this report card, from the V.M. Public School to be utterly unreliable. Therefore, the date of birth recorded by the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School in their records, for the detenue, turns utterly unreliable. 27. We inquired of the Principal if any birth certificate, relating to the detenue from the Municipal Corporation or the Panchayat or the school last attended, properly so called, was produced by the detenue’s parents, at the time when she was admitted to Class IV of the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School. The Principal answered in the negative and said that all that she had to depend upon for the detenue’s age was her report card from the V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur relating to Class I. There is another feature of infirmity about all these educational testimonials. 28. The fifth respondent, represented by his Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, wants us to believe, as he has already made the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School accept, the fact that the detenue, after passing her Class I, did not read in any school and was admitted to Class IV straightaway. We are not minded to accept this stand of the fifth respondent as well. The reason is that unless there be some very convincing explanation, in the current day of formality and competitiveness in the schools, it is difficult to visualise a scholar reading up to Class I and then being admitted straightaway to Class IV, without studying in the three intervening classes. The reason is that unless there be some very convincing explanation, in the current day of formality and competitiveness in the schools, it is difficult to visualise a scholar reading up to Class I and then being admitted straightaway to Class IV, without studying in the three intervening classes. It appears that the detenue did read in the intervening classes, but the records there did not suit the fifth respondent, for whatever reasons, which he has not produced not only before the Court, but also the Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar. 29. In the totality of circumstances, we are of opinion that whatever records, about the detenue’s date of birth have been produced from the school records, be it of Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar or V.M. Public School, Mandhana, Kanpur are all inaccurate and unreliable. They cannot be accepted to determine the detenue’s age. 30. In addition, there is another aspect of the matter. It is true that the age of a victim is to be determined in the same manner as a juvenile under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act by virtue of extension of the principle for age determination there to victims, by the Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana , (2013) 7 SCC 263 . Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act reads: “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” 31. According to sub- Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, there is a precedence to the class of evidence about the age of a victim, like a juvenile. The first preference, for the purpose of determining the age of a victim, is the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination board concerned, if available. If the aforesaid evidence is not forthcoming, the birth certificate, given by a Corporation or a Municipal Authority or a Panchayat, is the next class of evidence that is admissible to determine a victim’s age. If both these are not there, the age of the victim may be determined by undertaking an ossification test or any other latest medial age determination test conducted under orders of the Child Welfare Committee or the Juvenile Justice Board. It goes without saying that this power is always available to the Court, whether the District Judge or this Court. 32. The next question is: what would constitute a date of birth certificate from the school, within the meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act? In P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. It goes without saying that this power is always available to the Court, whether the District Judge or this Court. 32. The next question is: what would constitute a date of birth certificate from the school, within the meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act? In P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846, it has been held by the Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 14, 18 and 19: “14. Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act clearly indicates that the date of birth certificate from the school or matriculation or equivalent certificate by the concerned examination board has to be firstly preferred in the absence of which the birth certificate issued by the Corporation or Municipal Authority or Panchayat and it is only thereafter in the absence of these such documents the age is to be determined through ?an ossification test? or ?any other latest medical age determination test? conducted on the orders of the concerned authority, i.e. Committee or Board or Court. In the present case, concededly, only a transfer certificate and not the date of birth certificate or matriculation or equivalent certificate was considered. Ex. C1, i.e., the school transfer certificate showed the date of birth of the victim as 11.07.1997. Significantly, the transfer certificate was produced not by the prosecution but instead by the court summoned witness, i.e., CW-1. The burden is always upon the prosecution to establish what it alleges; therefore, the prosecution could not have been fallen back upon a document which it had never relied upon. Furthermore, DW-3, the concerned Revenue Official (Deputy Tahsildar) had stated on oath that the records for the year 1997 in respect to the births and deaths were missing. Since it did not answer to the description of any class of documents mentioned in Section 94(2)(i) as it was a mere transfer certificate, Ex C-1 could not have been relied upon to hold that M was below 18 years at the time of commission of the offence. ………………... 18. Reverting to the facts of this case, the headmaster of M's School, CW-1, was summoned by the court and produced a Transfer Certificate (Ex.C-1). This witness produced a Transfer Certificate Register containing M's name. ………………... 18. Reverting to the facts of this case, the headmaster of M's School, CW-1, was summoned by the court and produced a Transfer Certificate (Ex.C-1). This witness produced a Transfer Certificate Register containing M's name. He deposed that she had studied in the school for one year, i.e., 2009-2010 and that the date of birth was based on the basis of the record sheet given by the school where she studied in the 7th standard. DW-2 TMT Poongothoi, Headmaster of Chinnasoalipalayam Panchayat School, answered the summons served by the court and deposed that ?M? had joined her school with effect from 03.04.2002 and that her date of birth was recorded as 11.07.1997. She admitted that though the date of birth was based on the birth certificate, it would normally be recorded on the basis of horoscope. She conceded to no knowledge about the basis on which the document pertaining to the date of birth was recorded. It is stated earlier on the same issue, i.e., the date of birth, Thiru Prakasam, DW-3 stated that the birth register pertaining to the year 1997 was not available in the record room of his office. 19. It is clear from the above narrative that none of the documents produced during the trial answered the description of ?the date of birth certificate from the school? or ?the matriculation or equivalent certificate? from the concerned examination board or certificate by a corporation, municipal authority or a Panchayat. In these circumstances, it was incumbent for the prosecution to prove through acceptable medical tests/examination that the victim's age was below 18 years as per Section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act. PW-9, Dr. Thenmozhi, Chief Civil Doctor and Radiologist at the General Hospital at Vellore, produced the X-ray reports and deposed that in terms of the examination of M, a certificate was issued stating ?that the age of the said girl would be more than 18 years and less than 20 years?. In the cross- examination, she admitted that M's age could be taken as 19 years. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that ?when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor?. This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. However, the High Court rejected this evidence, saying that ?when the precise date of birth is available from out of the school records, the approximate age estimated by the medical expert cannot be the determining factor?. This finding is, in this court's considered view, incorrect and erroneous. As held earlier, the documents produced, i.e., a transfer certificate and extracts of the admission register, are not what Section 94(2)(i) mandates; nor are they in accord with Section 94(2)(ii) because DW-1 clearly deposed that there were no records relating to the birth of the victim, M. In these circumstances, the only piece of evidence, accorded with Section 94 of the JJ Act was the medical ossification test, based on several X-Rays of the victim, and on the basis of which PW-9 made her statement. She explained the details regarding examination of the victim's bones, stage of their development and opined that she was between 18-20 years; in cross-examination she said that the age might be 19 years. Given all these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the result of the ossification or bone test was the most authentic evidence, corroborated by the examining doctor, PW-9. ” 33. It is evident in view of the holding in P. Yuvaprakash (supra) that a scholar transfer certificate or an entry in the admission register or a sundry report card cannot be regarded as a date of birth certificate from the school, within the meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Therefore, apart from the doubt about the fidelity of documents produced from the school records, regarding the detenue’s age, in point of fact, we are of opinion that none of those documents qualify as a date of birth certificate within the meaning of sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act. These, therefore, cannot be relied upon on both counts. The only option, then left, by virtue of Section 94(2), is to depend on the medical opinion about age because, admittedly, a date of birth certificate from the Corporation or the Panchayat is not available for the detenue. At least, neither the State nor the fifth respondent have come up with a case that there is a certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation or the Panchayat regarding her age. 34. At least, neither the State nor the fifth respondent have come up with a case that there is a certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation or the Panchayat regarding her age. 34. The petitioner’s date of birth has already been medically determined by a board of doctors under the authority of the Chief Medial Officer, Kanpur pursuant to orders of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19047 of 2025 on 28 th August, 2025. The report of the Medical Board dated 8 th September, 2025, that we have already alluded to, opines the detenue to be aged about eighteen years on the basis of an ossification test and other medial tests as well. We, therefore, hold that the detenue is a major aged eighteen years, going by the principle that in case of a medical estimation of age, there could be a variation of two years on either side, which is to be construed in a manner which makes it exculpatory. 35. Muskan has been produced before us by the State in compliance with the rule nisi. Accordingly, we proceed to ascertain, for the purpose of this petition, the wishes of the detenue, Muskan. She has stated before us thus: 36. In view of the detenue’s stand, who is a major, that she wants to go and stay with her husband and in-laws, that is to say the second petitioner, Abhishek Rajput, there is absolutely no reason to detain her in custody of the Government Children Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. She is a major and free to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including her husband, Abhishek Rajput. 37. In the circumstances, this habeas corpus writ petition succeeds and is allowed . The rule nisi is made absolute . The detenue, Muskan, who is present in Court, shall be set at liberty forthwith. She is free to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including her husband Abhishek Rajput. The police personnel, who have brought her forth, are discharged of their assignment immediately. 38. Let the original records, produced by the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar, be returned to her. 39. She is free to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants, including her husband Abhishek Rajput. The police personnel, who have brought her forth, are discharged of their assignment immediately. 38. Let the original records, produced by the Principal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Junior High School, Bithoor, Kanpur Nagar, be returned to her. 39. Let this order be communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar, the Incharge/Superintendent, Government Children Home (Girls), Unit-1, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar and the Station House Officer, Police Station- Chaubepur, District- Western Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar by the Registrar (Compliance).