Lucknow, Aug. 28 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has cautioned police authorities and judicial officers against a "careless or callous approach" in matters of arrest and remand where the offence carries a maximum punishment of up to seven years. The court's observation was in relation to a habeas corpus petition concerning a Lucknow juvenile who was repeatedly sent to judicial custody in a case where the maximum punishment was three years and, after the addition of another provision, five years. "Lastly, the factum of illegal confinement, if it is established, may be taken seriously and erring official/officers may not be spared. So, all the concerning official/officers shall not take up aforesaid issue lightly," the court observed. The division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant passed the order on August 17 on the petition filed on behalf of the juvenile. The order was uploaded recently. The court disposed of the plea, where it had earlier found the juvenile's detention prima facie illegal and directed his release from jail forthwith. According to the case, an FIR was lodged against four accused persons, with the petitioner, a juvenile, shown as accused no. 1. Initially, Section 303 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to the offence of theft was invoked which carries a maximum punishment of three years. However, after the petitioner's arrest, Section 317(2) BNS relating to receipt or retention of stolen property was added, which carries a maximum punishment of five years. Thereafter, he was repeatedly sent to judicial custody by different jurisdictional magistrates. Earlier, hearing the matter on June 4, the high court had ordered the immediate release of the juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'. The court had referred to the Supreme Court's directions in the Satender Antil case, wherein it was held that an accused must be served with a Section 35(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita notice rather than be arrested in cases involving offences punishable with less than seven years' imprisonment. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court reiterated that arrest is an exception, not the rule, in offences punishable up to seven years. The Supreme Court also directed magistrates not to grant remand mechanically in such cases without examining whether the arrest was legal and whether statutory safeguards were followed. Apart from this, the high court had found another significant lapse in the present case. The petitioner's transfer certificate showed his date of birth as April 18, 2009. Since the FIR was lodged on April 27, 2026, he was below 17 years of age at the relevant time. However, neither the arresting authority nor the magistrate verified his age before the remand was granted. The court observed that had the magistrate verified the petitioner's age, "the minor could have not been sent for judicial custody" by allowing the remand application. The court also noted that another juvenile was involved in the case and questioned why the police had not ascertained the petitioner's age when the other person's juvenility had been established. The court also found that the ground of arrest had not been intimated to the petitioner, a fact that was not disputed by the state counsel. It further directed that the plea of juvenility, if it is raised, shall be taken into consideration by concerning authorities, strictly in accordance with law. The habeas corpus petition was accordingly disposed of finally. The court added that it expects the investigation against the petitioner to be completed and the police report, if any, to be filed strictly in accordance with law....