There was a dismissal in the bail application instituted before the Punjab and Haryana High court which was filed by the class 11 school student who is the accused in Gurugram private school murder case and has been charged with the murder of a seven year old child inside the school washroom( Master Bholu vs. State of Haryana and Anr. )
The Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board had earlier declined his bail and challenging this decision of the board they moved to the ASJ/ Appellate court but later the court quashed all the contentions.
The high court while dismissing the revision petition for the grant of bail stated that the orders for quashing the bail application were undertaken touching the merits of the case.
As provided by the Note of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan clarifying that the Supreme Court had granted strict notification to decide the bail of the accused only on the grounds of considering him an adult.
The court stated that, though it is a well settled principle of law that an application filed by the person who is above 16 years of age and has committed heinous crime.., pending preliminary assets by the Juvenile Justice Board, can be allowed however, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, in view of the order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the honorable Supreme Court, directing that for deciding the bail application, the petitioner be treated as an adult, therefore, there is a little scope for the court to find out whether the petitioner can be granted relief under section 12 of the Act.
The High Court had referred to the orders passed by the supreme court and the Juvenile justice board in the investigation and passed the orders of dismissal of the application.
Senior advocate Rupinder Khosla who had been representing Bholu presented before the court that his client has been suffering from ill-health in the children’s home he had been detained and the situation of delay of commencing the trial proceedings in the appeals filed were also aroused.
The High Court presented two medical reports countering the claims of ill health of the petitioner and stated that the delay in commencement of the trial cannot amount to the grounds for receiving bail. The court dismissed the plea of revision stating that there were no ground to grant the concession of bail.
By Rajat Verma of MMDU