Gurugram school murder: HC rejects minor accused’s bail petition
Had filed application on grounds that probe was not completed within prescribed period
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday rejected the bail petition of the 16-year-old boy accused of slitting the throat of a Class-2 student of the private school in Gurugram in September last year, the lawyer representing the victim’s family said.
Sushil Tekriwal, who is representing the victim’s family, said the bench of justice Daya Chaudhary rejected the bail petition of the accused. “The high court judgment rejecting the bail of juvenile today vindicates our consistent contention that the hyper-technical point of 60 days chargesheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the murder case cannot sustain. This judgment is also one step forward toward final justice,” Tekriwal said.
The victim’s father said the boy would have been a threat to the society if he was granted bail.
The father of the accused, who attended the court proceedings, broke down after hearing the order. The accused filed the bail application on the grounds that the investigation in the matter was not completed within the prescribed period.
CHANDIGARH/GURUGRAM: The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday rejected the bail petition of the 16-year-old boy accused of slitting the throat of a Class-2 student of the private school in Gurugram in September last year.
The high court bench of justice Daya Chaudhary held that the time period available to the investigating agency to complete the investigation, in the case involving a child accused, who is alleged to have committed the offence of murder, would be that of 90 days and not 60 days.
“The high court judgment rejecting the bail of juvenile today vindicates our consistent contention that the hyper-technical point of 60 days chargesheet by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the murder case cannot sustain. This judgment is also one step forward toward final justice,” Sushil Tekriwal, who is representing the victim’s family, said.
The father of the accused, who attended the court proceedings, broke down after hearing the order. The accused filed the bail application on the grounds that the investigation in the matter was not completed within the prescribed period.
“The CBI exceeded their time period for filing the chargesheet and filed it after 90 days and not within prescribed limit of 60 days,” his lawyer Sandeep Aneja said.
The court also held that the date on which the challan is presented before a trial court judge should be counted for stipulated time period and not the date on which it was submitted before Ahlmad. If the application for bail and challan are presented on the same day – the accused will be entitled to be released on bail if the application was entertained before challan was filed. However, days of custody are to be computed from the date of remanding of the accused and not from the date of arrest, justice Daya Chaudhary held. In this case challan was presented after 60 days of arrest.
The father of accused had filed a petition in the high court on February 16 for his son’s bail.
A Gurugram special children’s court had on May 21 upheld the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) December order and adjudged that the accused should be tried as an adult. The board dismissed his bail plea on December 15 last year and the special children’s court dismissed the application on January 8.
CBI’s counsel Sumeet Goel had argued that the juvenile should not be granted a bail as its probe in the case is still pending and is at a crucial stage with witnesses yet to be examined. He may tamper with evidence and intimidate or influence the witnesses, the CBI had argued, adding that he may even abscond which would hamper the course of the investigation.
CBI EXCEEDED THEIR TIME PERIOD FOR FILING THE CHARGESHEET AND IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD OF 60 DAYS