Ryan School Murder Case : Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Accused Who Was Juvenile At The Time Of Crime

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Thursday granted interim bail to the juvenile accused for the murder of a seven-year-old boy at Gurugram's Ryan International School in a crime that sent shockwaves through the nation. This comes on the heels of a decision of the Juvenile Justice Board on Monday that the accused has to be tried as an adult. The Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K. Maheshwari allowed the release of the accused subject to "such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Sessions Judge, Gurugram" and specifically mentioned that he would be under the "continued supervision" of the probation officer or any other person entrusted with the responsibility. The Sessions Judge was also directed to apprise the Court of any "shortcoming in the conduct of the petitioner" brought to their notice by the probation officer. This was done to satisfy the "requirements of balancing the competing claims and equities", the Bench said.An interesting legal point that came up during the discussion was whether Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 could be pressed into service by an adult accused of a crime committed while they were a juvenile in order to get bail. This, the Bench decided, would need a detailed examination and granted leave. However, the Court noted that the accused, who was arrested as a sixteen-year-old, has been lodged in a correctional facility for the almost five years. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari said – "Whether a bail application is maintainable under Section 12 is maintainable or not is a question that we will examine, determine whether it has to go to a three-Judge Bench. At present, we do not know. We are keeping everything is open. Section 12 being applicable to him does not ipso facto mean he will get bail. Other hurdles will have to be cleared. We will examine all that. But the point is, the accused has been detained for five years. Have we been able to balance the competing considerations?"Advocate Sushil Tekriwal, representing the victim's father, vehemently opposed the move to grant interim bail. He submitted that there were some "vulnerabilities attached to some of the material witnesses" who stayed "in the same vicinity". He said – "There are intimidating aspects…Including judicial officers are not being spared. These two, father and uncle, are very strong people from the local bar. My Lords may consider the application expeditiously but the material witnesses should be examined. Only after this, should such an interim arrangement be granted. So that the witnesses can give their statements without any apprehension or fear."Reminding the counsel that the father of the accused had already been "taken to task" in a Court order, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari asked – "If you say the guardians and parents and other persons related to the accused have their own forces working…If they are to do something, they could do it, regardless of whether the boy is on bail. That is not the answer. What do you mean to say, if the boy comes out, it will add extra flavours to what they are already allegedly doing?"Tekriwal responded – "The effect would be that it would be multiplied."Justice Dinesh Maheshwari sharply rejected this contention and said – "You are looking at only the emotions, and not the reality. The crime is barbaric and horrifying. But still, the law must have balance."On behalf of the CBI, Additional Solicitor-General Vikramjit Banerjee said – "I understand that he has spent some time being detained. But, the accused is not in jail."Justice Dinesh Maheshwari rebutted – "In any case, he is not a free man."Allowing the application for interim bail, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari pronounced – "…Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is granted and until further orders of this court, that is by way of interim measure, the petitioner appellant be released on bail on conditions as may be imposed by sessions judge Gurugram. It is, however, specifically provided that the petitioner appellant shall continuously remain under supervision of a probation officer or any other person appointed by the sessions judge. It is also made clear that the petitioner and his parents would be expected not to create hindrance in the trial of the case and for that matter will not try to contact or communicate with any of the witnesses."On September 8, 2017, the body of a Class II student was recovered with his throat slit inside a washroom at Ryan International School in Gurugram. The Central Bureau of Investigation, after taking over the case from the Haryana Police, exonerated the person who was initially accused and apprehended a Class XI student from the same school. The undertrial accused, who was sixteen at the time of the incident, turned twenty-one this year on April 3. The trial is set to begin on October 31.Case TitleMaster Bholu (Imaginary Name) v. CBI [SLP (Crl) No. 8691/2021]Click Here To Read/Download Order

Ryan School Murder Case : Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Accused Who Was Juvenile At The Time Of Crime

Awstika Das

Tags