Gurugram murder: Can’t ignore kin’s cries while giving minor relief, SC told

The CBI has alleged that the accused, then 16-years-old, had slit the throat of the victim in the school washroom on September 8, 2017, as he wanted to delay examinations scheduled for later that month.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is probing the 2017 killing of a seven-year-old boy at a private school in Gurugram, has told the Supreme Court that the cries of a victim and his family cannot be ignored while considering relief to a juvenile offender accused of a heinous crime.

The Supreme Court building in Delhi. (Amal KS/HT PHOTO)

The CBI has alleged that the accused, then 16-years-old, had slit the throat of the victim in the school washroom on September 8, 2017, as he wanted to delay examinations scheduled for later that month.

The accused, who recently turned 21, had applied for bail in the top court after the Punjab and Haryana high court denied him bail on October 6 last year. On July 13, the Supreme Court had directed the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to determine afresh whether the accused should be tried as an adult rather than a juvenile as the offence involved was a heinous crime.

Opposing bail to the accused, the probe agency in an affidavit filed on Monday said, “The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act is certainly meant to treat a child with care and sensitivity offering him a chance to reform and settle into the mainstream of society…. The provisions of JJ Act cannot be interpreted to work only for the benefit of the juvenile ignoring the cries of the victim child or his family whenever a child becomes a victim of offence, let alone a heinous offence like murder.”

However, a bench of justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi told CBI, “You cannot keep the matter hanging fire like this. You must take it to its logical conclusion. The accused was arrested in November 2017 and has since been kept in an observation home…”

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Vikramjeet Banerjee, appearing for CBI, informed the court that the JJB will get a report from NIMHANS, Bengaluru on how to retrospectively assess the accused’s mental state of mind at the time of commission of crime, by Thursday (September 8). The CBI said that the expert team’s report will have a bearing on the bail plea moved by the accused and sought an adjournment. The Court accepted the request and posted the matter for September 28.

Meanwhile, the accused represented by senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra and advocate Durga Dutt told the Court that he was willing to argue the bail plea without awaiting the NIMHANS report. Mishra said that the health of the 21-year-old was deteriorating day by day and he was willing to take the risk of arguing the bail, assuming that he is to be tried as an adult.

The bench said that if the experts feel he is to be treated as a minor, in that event he shall be released forthwith. Mishra said, “The poor boy is in custody for over four years.” Objecting to the use of the word “poor”, the bench remarked, “Do not use the expression ‘poor’. We can understand if a genuine poor person approaches the Court.”

The bail plea was also opposed by the victim’s father who said that the father of the accused was affluent and influential, being a bar leader of the local bar association. The victim’s family further claimed that the trial is yet to begin and one of the witnesses to depose is the 16-year-old sister of the victim. Releasing the accused at this stage will make the minor witness extremely vulnerable, he said.