6 minors get bail from JJB, but told to leave Delhi

In a rare bail order, a Juvenile Justice Board in Delhi directed six children in conflict with law (CCLs), accused in the murder of a 17-year-old boy, to remain outside the national capital as a condition of their release and not return without prior intimation to the Board

In a rare bail order, a Juvenile Justice Board in Delhi directed six children in conflict with law (CCLs), accused in the murder of a 17-year-old boy, to remain outside the national capital as a condition of their release and not return without prior intimation to the Board.

Police said a 17-year-old was beaten to death in January, allegedly by the six teenagers (Photo for representation)

The order was passed by Juvenile Justice Board-4, East District, on May 2 in a case registered at Mayur Vihar Phase-1 police station under sections 103(1) (murder), 115(2) (causing hurt), 126(2) (wrongful restraint) and 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The six minors had been in protective custody since January 6, according to the order seen by HT.

Police said the 17-year-old Class 11 student from a government school in Mayur Vihar was beaten to death in January, allegedly by the six teenagers, following an argument over a comment on a social media post in east Delhi’s Trilokpuri. He had been called outside by the boys and was later found unconscious near his home.

The Board granted bail after considering a report by investigating officer inspector Pramod Kumar, counselling reports and submissions by the minors’ lawyers and parents or guardians.

Instead of allowing them to return to their homes in Delhi, however, the Board directed them to stay with relatives in Sambhal, Rampur, Ghaziabad and Hapur in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh.

Their lawyers told the Board that the parents and guardians had assured it that the children were not associated with known criminals or “bad association/elements” and that they had full control over them. The investigating officer had also filed address verification reports for the proposed places of residence.

The State opposed the bail applications, saying the CCLs could be dealt with “in accordance with law”.

The Board noted that all six had undergone counselling and had remained in custody since January 6. “There would be no useful purpose in keeping all the CCLs in protective custody in the present matter,” the order said.

It also recorded undertakings from their parents and guardians to take proper care of the children, and concluded that their release was not likely to bring them into association with known criminals or expose them to “moral, physical and psychological danger”.

The six were released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹25,000 each, with one surety of the same amount.

The Board directed them to stay at the addresses of their respective relatives or native places placed before it and notify it of any change of address.

It also imposed safeguards aimed at protecting the victim’s family and witnesses. “All the CCLs or their respective family members will not induce any threat or try to influence the family of the victim/witnesses,” the order stated.

The most unusual condition barred all six from returning to Delhi without informing the Board. “All the CCLs will not visit Delhi, without prior intimation/information to the Board and will stay with their respective relatives/parties/guardians,” the order said.

The relocation did not exempt them from appearing before the Board, and they are required to attend hearings unless their absence is justified.

“The direction is notable because bail orders concerning children in conflict with law ordinarily focus on supervision, care, protection and ensuring that the child does not come into contact with criminal influences. In this case, the Board combined those safeguards with a specific restriction requiring the six minors to remain outside Delhi,” a government official said.

A senior police officer said the six minors have remained outside Delhi since the order and are pursuing their studies and careers under the guidance of their relatives.

Charges have been framed in the case and the victim’s family has also received compensation, the officer said.