SC rejects juvenile’s bail plea
The 16yearold juvenile in conflict with the law is accused of killing a 7yearold
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain the bail plea of a juvenile who was apprehended by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for killing a seven-year-old in a private school in Gurugram.
A bench of justices RF Nariman and Indu Malhotra disagreed with the juvenile’s lawyer, Gaurav Agarwal, that the boy should have been granted bail because the CBI filed a chargesheet in 90 days instead of 60 days.
Agarwal contended that the Juvenile Justice Act bars the trial court from imposing life sentence on a minor for any crime and, therefore, as per the law the CBI should have submitted its final investigation report within 60 days.
The 90 day time is taken only if the crime carries a likely jail term for life.
However, the bench differed with Agarwal’s views and said a juvenile accused of murder, if proven guilty, can be sentenced to life imprisonment. But, under such circumstances, the trial court will have to clarify that the convicted child can apply for remission.
“Once its death, life or more than ten years punishment then 90 days is the statutory period to file the chargesheet,” the bench remarked, refusing to accept Agarwal’s plea to consider the boy’s bail petition. Justice Nariman then advised the lawyer to apply for a regular bail before the trial court.
Sushil Tekriwal, lawyer for the victim’s family, welcomed the SC order.
“By dismissing the bail plea, the top court has almost upheld the amended Juvenile Justice Act to the extent that life imprisonment can be given to juvenile accused involved in heinous offences such as murder. This would hopefully curb such offences to a large extent,” Tekriwal said.
The 16-year-old student of a prominent school in Gurugram is accused of killing a sevenyear-old boy of the same institution in September last year.
A sessions court had on May 21 ruled that the 16-year-old would be tried as an adult in the case.
Upholding the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme court had said the juvenile board took into consideration all the material placed before it to establish “the physical and mental capacity (of the accused) to commit the crime” and there was no need for any intervention.
The accused had challenged the December 20 order of the JJB, which had held that the teenager would be tried as an adult.