SPIDEY BUZZ

Ryan murder: CBI opposes bail plea by the accused juvenile

Photo: Reena Dhankher
Posted: Dec 23, 2017

In the latest development in the Ryan murder case, the CBI, on Friday, opposed the bail petition filed by the legal counsel of the 16-year-old accused in the session’s court on December 21.

The boy’s counsel had filed an appeal against the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to reject bail for him on December 15. The CBI gave a strong reply, stating reasons to oppose the bail plea.

Among other arguments, the CBI mentioned the possibility of tampering with evidence and witnesses and also the possibility of the accused absconding as reasons for denying the bail.

The matter will now be heard at the session’s court on January 6.

The legal counsel of the accused applied for bail on the basis of Section 10(5) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules 2016, stating that in the event the investigating agency is unable to submit documents within a month of the arrest, the accused can apply for bail.

However, as per the reply filed by the CBI, the juvenile was taken into custody on November 8, and the records and case diaries were produced before the court on November 22 and December 6, respectively.

Speaking to City Spidey, Sushil K Tekriwal, legal counsel representing Pradyuman’s family, explained, “Section 10(5) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, says that documents have to be submitted within a month. However, it does not state that if the same does not happen, bail can be granted. This is not mentioned anywhere in the Act. And hence, it should not be assumed that bail should be granted.”

He added, “In such a case, we fall on the procedural law CRPC (Criminal Procedure Court) Section 167 (2), which states that if the chargesheet is not filed within 90 days, bail can be granted. However, the 90-day limit is still not over in this case. Hence, by default, the question of bail does not arise.”

 

 

 

TAGS: Ryan Murder Case / CBI / Juvenile Justice Board / Sushil K Tekriwal / Pradyuman / Session’s Court

COMMENT