The Single Bench of Justice G. Girish granted time for the State to respond to the petition filed by the first, second and third CCL, while staying the operation of the Board’s order allowing “escorted movement” for evidence recovery.
Reportedly, the Board’s order had allowed the police’s request, considering the severity of the alleged crime, imposing certain conditions to protect the welfare of the children, including that the movement was only permitted for specifically mentioned purposes, transport in an unidentifiable vehicle to avoid public attention, avoiding public, media and social media exposure and that the children would be the responsibility of the Special Juvenile Police Unit (SJPU).
In their plea before the High Court, the children alleged that there was no provision for “escorted movement” for evidence collection and recovery in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. They contended that the order ignored their detailed objections, which stated that the proposed investigation for the recovery of gloves, gold and digital data could be effectively carried out through alternative, less intrusive methods such as CCTV analysis, independent witness examination, Cyber Cell intervention and digital forensics without removing the children from the Observation Home, Alappuzha, where they are currently held. The petitioners had also questioned before the Board whether the officer taking responsibility for the children during the escorted movement held a valid designation as a Child Welfare Police Officer (CWPO) and had received mandatory special training as a member of the SJPU.
The petitioners also alleged before the High Court that the order deliberately kept the date and time of the movement secret, and stated that the Board did not have the power to authorise police custody of a CCL.
Four minors are being investigated for the alleged murder of a man in Alappuzha.