E-Paper
HC declines bail to Gurugram juvenile accused of murder
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of a Gurugram juvenile accused of murdering a Class-2 student of the same school in 2017
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday dismissed the bail plea of a Gurugram juvenile accused of murdering a Class-2 student of the same school in 2017.
The HC bench of justice Avneesh Jhingan dismissed the plea primarily on grounds of apprehension that there can be an attempt to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.
The boy is accused of slitting the throat of a Class-2 student in a bid to postpone the exams. Initially, the probe was conducted by the Haryana Police and a bus conductor was accused of murdering him.
Later, CBI claimed that the crime was committed by the boy in question. The boy, named Bholu by a local Gurugram court since identity of a juvenile in conflict with law cannot be revealed, is in an observation home since November 2017.
Earlier, attempt of bail plea taken up to the Supreme Court resulted in dismissal of the same by the apex court in September 2020, in which it was also ordered that he be treated as an adult while deciding his bail pleas.
The fresh round of bail process was initiated in February and after dismissal of plea at the lower court, the HC was approached on April 23, 2021.
One plea is still pending in the Supreme Court involving a question whether the boy is to be tried as an adult or a juvenile. He was 16-years-and-five-months-old at the time of the alleged incident.
In the fresh plea, it was argued that the appellant was in observation home for three years and eleven months.
Ultimately, if it is held that the petitioner is to be treated as child in conflict with law, he has already undergone the maximum sentence he could be awarded, it was argued further adding that even if he is to be treated as an adult, his custody period is substantial, more over as there is no progress in the trial. There are total 127 prosecution witnesses.
The HC took note of the CBI report which argued that the appellant is to be treated as an adult for considering his bail application. The contention that ‘if he is to be treated as child in conflict with law’ is not available to him as ordered by the Supreme Court.
The CBI had further argued that there is no change in circumstances and mere custody itself cannot be a ground for grant of bail.
The CBI had also brought on record proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram, where the presiding officer had recorded that the appellant and his father, who is a practising lawyer, tried to pressure the presiding officer.
There are complaints filed that the appellant and his father tried to influence the witnesses in the present case, the CBI had submitted.
The court observed that considering the facts and circumstances in totality, the custody period and non-progress of trial cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail.
The court also took note of the lower court order on dismissal of bail plea about apprehensions recorded that certain witnesses including the sister of the deceased were minor and possibility of influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out, if the boy is to be released on bail.
