A city sessions court in Ahmedabad has refused to grant regular bail to a Class 10 student from Seventh Day Adventist School, who is accused of fatally stabbing another student, Nayan Santani, in August. The juvenile has been held in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) since August 22.
The Legal Battle and Bail Plea
The father of the minor filed an appeal in the special sessions court, which also functions as a children's court, after the Juvenile Justice Board rejected a bail plea on October 17. In his appeal, the father argued for his son's innocence, claiming the boy was implicated based solely on suspicion.
The defense submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence linking the juvenile to the crime. They pointed out that of the six witnesses who have testified so far, three have not supported the prosecution's case. The defense also contested the allegation that the minor stabbed the victim with a knife, calling it false.
Key Arguments from the Defense
The defense highlighted that while the entire incident was captured on CCTV, the accused is not visible in the footage. Witness statements indicated that the real culprit had concealed his face with a scarf. Furthermore, the defense noted that 49 more witnesses are yet to be examined, a process that could take a considerable amount of time, justifying the need for bail.
Prosecution's Opposition and Court's Evaluation
The public prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application. The court reviewed a report from the probation officer, which provided insights into the juvenile's background. The report stated that the minor has friendly relations with his family, enjoys watching TV, films, and sports, and was not used by any adult in criminal activity or drug distribution. It also noted he is not prone to running away from home.
However, the report crucially stated that the juvenile has a "central role in the offence." It also mentioned his emotional quotient, physical, and mental condition are good.
The Court's Final Ruling
After hearing both sides, Additional Sessions Judge M P Purohit delivered the verdict. The judge emphasized that an evaluation of evidence was not necessary at this stage. The court noted that the deceased boy was of the same age as the accused. In these circumstances, the judge ruled that granting bail to the "juvenile in conflict with the law would defeat the purpose of justice."
The court concluded that it did not find it appropriate to use its discretionary power in favour of the accused juvenile, leading to the denial of regular bail. The minor will remain in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Board as the legal proceedings continue.
