Mahima
A District and Session Court in Gurugram rejected the bail application filed by the prime accused in Ryan School Murder Case.
The accused at the time of the incident was a student of 11th standard, therefore, a juvenile in conflict with law.
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Sahrawat denied the bail after observing that the present bail application was not maintainable with respect to the previous Supreme Court order. The Supreme Court in its previous order directed to maintain status quo in the matter on the question of whether the applicant should be tried as an adult or a juvenile.
The Court stated,
“In such circumstances, this application for bail is not maintainable in any case before this court. If the applicant is considered a juvenile, then such bail application should be moved before the Juvenile Justice Board, Gurugram. On the other side, if the applicant is considered as an adult, then such bail application should be moved before the Special Sessions Court at Panchkula designated in the State of Haryana for the cases investigated by CBI as the instant case has also been investigated by CBI. Hence, in both the eventualities, the instant application for bail may not be maintainable before this court”.
The Court also observed that since the earlier bail petitions were already rejected up to the Supreme Court, the applicant is not eligible to move another bail application and therefore, it cannot be reviewed by the Court in the routine manner.
The Court observed,
“As an inference of the above discussion, the court is having a view that the instant bail application is neither maintainable before this court, nor any other ground has been made out to consider such request of granting bail. Even the inquiry, whether the applicant should be treated by Juvenile Justice Board as juvenile, or whether he should be tried as an adult, has still not been concluded and the same is stayed under the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.11.2018 in SLP No. 10123 of 2018. In such circumstances, the application for bail by the applicant is hereby dismissed”.
Few years ago, a 2nd standard student of Ryan International School was found to be profusely bleeding and had a cut on his neck following which he was taken to the hospital. The father found his 7-year-old in the emergency ward of the hospital where
the student succumbed to his neck injuries.
Initially, the school bus conductor was incarcerated for slitting the victim’s throat. However, the matter was transferred to the Crime Branch and after its investigation, the present accused was arrested under suspicion of murder and continues to be in custody.
The counsel for the accused, Sandeep Aneja, argued that the applicant has been in custody since last few years without any incriminating evidence filed in the charge sheet by the CBI against him. It was also submitted that the State Government declined to sanction the prosecution of four police officials for framing the conductor which depicts the genuineness of earlier
investigations.
The Court noted the applicant’s failure to show subsequent change in circumstances following dismissal of his bail applications and observed that shear failure of sanctioning the four police officials by the State ‘is no ground to seek bail form the Court’ but ‘merely an administrative action’ which does not amount to falsification of the entire CBI case. The counsel for the complainant, advocate Sushil K. Tekriwal, submitted that the applicant is habitual of filing various bail applications on some or the other ground which have been dismissed by various courts. He also prompted that such a bail application is not maintainable as long as the inquiry is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.