A Gurgaon court Monday dismissed the bail plea of the 16-year-old accused of murdering a Class II student of a prominent school in Gurgaon. It also imposed a cost of Rs 21,000 on him, through his father, and asked him to deposit the fine in three months. Counsel of the victim’s father, Sushil Tekriwal, confirmed the development.
The court also directed that “parties to the proceedings as well as the public at large, including the media, use imaginary names given in the judgment to refer to the school, victim, and teenage accused,” and allotted the terms “Vidyalaya”, “Prince”, and “Bholu” for each.
Referring to an earlier bail plea filed by the defence, which was rejected by the Juvenile Justice Board last month, the judgment stated that contrary to the allegations of the defence, “there was no irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the JJB”.
The defence, during the hearing on Saturday, had argued that the teenager should be granted “compulsive/statutory bail” as the CBI failed to file the final report in the case within a month, “as per Rule 10 (5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016”.
Responding to the allegations, the CBI had claimed that the rule “nowhere speaks about completion of probe within a month”, but only talks of the Child Welfare Police Officer having to produce “statements of witnesses and documents to the Board” within one month.
The CBI had argued that as the crime committed by the juvenile is “heinous and punishable with death or life imprisonment”, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 167 of the CrPC (procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours) “only after completion of 90 days, which in present case is going to expire on 04.02.2018”. Citing Rule 10 (5) and Rule 10 (6), the court said a “combined study” of the two goes against the appellant.
The 13-page document also pulled up the appellant for “taking court proceedings for a joy ride” — by moving a “vague application” before the JJB and filing the current “baseless appeal” — and, hence, “wasting valuable court time” by taking up a total of seven hearings — two before the JJB and five with the district court.