7 The Prescribed Cases — Nepal's Juvenile-Justice Jurisprudence

1. Advocate Ashish Adhikari on behalf of Bablu Godia vs. Banke District Court et al., Writ No. 3390 of the year 2057 B.S., Habeas Corpus, Date of Decision: 2057/12/12 B.S. — the foundational habeas: a 14-year-old convicted (theft chapter) and held in the adult prison among adults; the Court directed his placement in the juvenile reform home (Section 42(3), Children's Act 2048) and issued mandamus on the state's duty to establish reform homes (Section 42(1)) — the child-never-in-adult-prison rule and the reform-home duty's birth-certificate. 2. Pleader Tara Devi Khanal on behalf of Raj Kumar Rai vs. Ministry of Home Affairs et al., Writ No. 25 of the year 2058, Habeas Corpus, Date of Decision: 2058/10/02 B.S. — the below-14 murder co-accused bailed only on a deposit he could not furnish and jailed — the early-line's illustration of the juvenile protections' non-application (the juvenile would not be kept in prison for remand — the Bablu Godia line's enforcement). 3. Advocate Ashish Adhikari on behalf of Keshav Khadka vs. His Majesty's Government, Ministry of Home Affairs et al., Writ No. 70 of the year 2058 B.S., Habeas Corpus, Date of Decision: 2058/12/13 B.S. — the early habeas cluster's companion (the juvenile- detention line of the pre-bench era); read the report and cite with the syllabus's citation. 4. Advocate Bal Krishna Mainali vs.…