Rohtas: A controversial case from Bihar’s Rohtas district has triggered serious questions about police procedure and the application of stringent laws involving minors, after a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against a child aged just nine years. The matter, which originated from a minor scuffle among children, has now drawn the attention of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), exposing alleged lapses in investigation and documentation by the police.
According to available information, the incident occurred in December 2025, when a dispute broke out between a group of children. Following the altercation, the mother of one of the children approached the Nauhatta police station and lodged a First Information Report (FIR). In her complaint, four children and a few other individuals were named as accused. The FIR alleged physical assault and the use of abusive language during the incident. Acting on the complaint, the police registered a case and invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act along with other relevant sections of law.
What raised serious concerns later was the age of the accused. Among the children named in the FIR, one was found to be only nine years old. Despite this, the FIR did not clearly record the correct ages of the accused, and no apparent distinction was made between minors and adults during the registration of the case.
The issue came to light on Thursday, February 19, 2026, when the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board for hearing. Upon examining the case records, Magistrate Amit Pandey observed that the child’s age was between nine and ten years. The Board expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the FIR had been drafted, noting multiple shortcomings, particularly the failure to accurately mention the ages of both children and adults involved.
Terming the lapse a serious instance of negligence, the Juvenile Justice Board directed that the child be immediately sent back into the custody of his guardian. Additionally, the Board ordered the officer-in-charge of Nauhatta police station to submit a detailed explanation within 24 hours regarding the procedural lapses in the case.
