Ggn school murder: Bail plea of juvenile accused rejected Use only imaginary names for accused, victim, school: Court
FINED Accused also told to pay ₹21,000 for wasting the court’s time
GURGAON: The Gurgaon special children’s court on Monday rejected the bail application of the 16-year-old accused of murdering an eight-year-old boy at a private school in Gurgaon. The court also imposed a fine of ₹21,000 on the petitioner for wasting the court’s time in baseless litigation regarding the bail.
The court imposed a fine of ₹3,000 on the juvenile accused for each of the seven hearings held over the bail plea, adding up to ₹21,000.
In another significant direction, additional sessions judge Jasbir Singh Kundu, who heard the bail petition, also directed the media not to use the name of the juveniles, whether it was accused or the victim, and asked them to use imaginary names instead.
“There is no ground for default bail of appellant at this stage. As such, appeal is not only devoid of merits, but it calls for dismissed with costs. Consequently appeal is hereby dismissed,” the court ordered.
Mentioning the imaginary name of the accused as ‘Bholu’, judge Kundu, in his order stated that there were no grounds for default bail of appellant. The future proceedings of the case would be conducted in-camera, the court said. The court has also used the name of eight-year-old victim as ‘Prince’ and the name of the school where the incident took place to be mentioned as ‘Vidyalaya’.
The father of the juvenile
COURT SAID THE VICTIM SHOULD ONLY BE IDENTIFIED AS ‘PRINCE’, THE JUVENILE ACCUSED AS ‘BHOLU’, AND THE SCHOOL AS ‘VIDYALAYA’
accused was directed to deposit the penalty within three months.
The court also said the appellant had moved a “vague” application for bail. “His ulterior motive might be to divert the track of ongoing investigation or to delay the investigation and then to grab the default bail as per provisions contained under section 167 (2) of the CRPC, but it is apparent that he became instrumental in wasting valuable court time,” the court observed.
The order stated the appellant has consumed a valuable 28 days out of the 90 days’ time of the investigating agency, during which it has to file chargesheet, and five hearings before the court. The ruling added that the appellant knew that the prayer was premature at this stage.
“To conclude, the conduct of the appellant indicates that he is taking court proceedings for a joy ride. He has indulged in wasting precious court time in baseless litigation on account of which seven court proceedings have gone down the drain,” the court observed.
The court thus upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision of rejecting the bail application of the accused on December 15.
The CBI had apprehended the juvenile accused on November 7 on charges of murdering a Class 2 student of the private school on September 8. The victim was found bleeding outside the toilet of the school with his throat slashed with a knife twice.
“We are satisfied by the court’s decision and it seems we are moving towards getting justice for the innocent child (victim). Our submission in the court was that he (accused) should not get any relief at this juncture,” said the counsel for the victim’s father. GURGAON: The Gurgaon special children’s court on Monday prohibited the disclosure of the identities of juveniles whether it was the victim, the accused, the school, or any other party in connection with the murder of an eight-year-old boy at a school.
The court directed that the media should use the imaginary names of the victim, the accused, and the school as mentioned in the judgment.
As per the directions given by additional sessions and district judge Jasbir Singh Kundu, the victim would now be known as ‘Prince’, the 16-year-old accused be referred to as ‘Bholu’, and the private school where the murder took place as ‘Vidyalaya’.
In case of violation of the directives by the media or any other agency, the violators could face a penalty of ₹2 lakh and imprisonment which may extend to six months or both. The court also ordered that the picture of any child should also not be published.
“To sensitise all the stakeholders regarding provisions of Section 74 of the Act and with the objective of preventing social victimisation of the victim, witnesses and the appellant/child in conflict with law, this court has chosen to describe them with some imaginary names in this judgment. Parties to the proceedings as well as the public at large including the media persons are hereby directed to use imaginary names given in this judgement wherever they have to refer the persons or facts of this case,” the court ordered.
Invoking section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, judge Kundu imposed a prohibition on disclosure of identity of children and any person related to the case. The order stated that no report in any newspaper, magazine, newssheet, or audio-visual media or other forms of communication shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of child in conflict of law (accused) or a child in need of care or protection or a child witness or victim of crime involved in any such matter.