Court denies bail to student in Ryan case, imposes cost
Gurgaon: A sessions court today rejected the bail plea of a 16-year-old student, accused of killing 7-year- old Pradhuman Thakur at the Ryan International School here.
Additional Sessions Judge Jasbir Singh Kundu declined relief to the accused and imposed a cost of Rs 21,000 for "wasting court's time" in baseless litigation and directed the father of the accused to deposit the amount.
"The conduct of the appellant (accused) indicates that he is taking court proceedings for a joy ride. He has indulged in wasting precious court time in baseless litigation on account of which seven court hearings have gone down the drain.
"This court finds no irregularities, illegalities or impropriety in the impugned order dated December 15, 2017 passed by JJB, dismissing default bail application," the court said.
The court said the accused's ulterior motive in filing the present application was aimed to divert the track of the ongoing investigation or delay the probe and then "grab" the default bail.
It also directed in-chamber proceeding in the matter and ordered the media not to use the juvenile's name in any of the reports.
Talking to PTI, Barun Thakur, father of the seven-year old-boy Pradhuman Thakur who was found killed, welcomed the order and said he was satisfied with the verdict and the progress of the investigation so far.
The court had earlier reserved the order after hearing arguments of the counsel for the accused, the CBI and the complainant.
The defence counsel had claimed that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed within one month, as prescribed in the Juvenile Justice Act, and he was not given the required documents.
Opposing the contention, the CBI had said the mandatory period for filing a charge sheet was 90 days under CrPC provisions as the accused had been declared an adult by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).
Pradhuman was found with his throat slit in the school's washroom on September 8 last year.
The Gurgaon Police had claimed the crime was committed by a school bus conductor, which was later refuted by the CBI.
The probe agency had claimed the teenager had killed Pradhuman in a bid to get the school closed so that a parent- teacher meeting and an examination could be deferred.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the accused against an order of the JJB denying him bail.
The JJB had on December 20 held that the teenager would be tried as an adult and directed that he be produced before the Gurgaon sessions court.
The JJB had noted that the accused was mature enough to recognise the consequences of his actions.
If convicted, the accused will stay in a correctional home till he is 21 years old after which the court can shift him to a jail or grant him bail, it had said.
The board had earlier rejected the bail plea of the Class 11 Ryan International School student.
It had set up a committee which included a psychologist from the PGI, Rohtak, for an expert opinion on the accused who was taken into custody by the CBI in November 2017.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lowers the age of juveniles from 18 years to 16 years for heinous crimes such as rape, murder and dacoit-cum- murder, which warrant at least seven years of imprisonment.
However, the JJB first decides whether the crime was "child-like" or was it committed in an "adult frame of mind", following which it orders the accused to be tried as a juvenile or an adult.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ballari violence: Were cops made scapegoats to cover political failure?
Bengaluru: Across Karnataka, a serious discussion has begun after the violence in Ballari and the swift action taken against police officers who were on the ground that day. The core question being asked is simple: when law and order fails, why are police officers the first to be shown the door, while political responsibility is quietly pushed aside?
The January 1 clash in Ballari was not a sudden street fight. It was a political confrontation involving supporters of two sitting MLAs. A banner related to the unveiling of a Valmiki statue became the flashpoint. What followed was stone-pelting, firing, and the death of a Congress worker. The situation spiralled within hours.
Within a day, Ballari SP Pavan Nejjur was suspended. Soon after, senior officers were reshuffled. Deputy Inspector General of Police Vartika Katiyar was transferred. No official reason was cited in the notification. But the timing made one thing clear: accountability, at least on paper, had been fixed.
Since then, there has been unease within police circles and political debate outside it.
Unconfirmed reports that Nejjur attempted suicide after his suspension were firmly denied by senior officers and the home minister. They said he was safe, resting, and under stress. Still, the very fact that such reports gained traction says something about the pressure officers feel when action is taken overnight, without public clarity.
Opposition leaders have called Nejjur a scapegoat, pointing out that he had taken charge only hours before the violence. They have asked how an officer can be blamed for a political clash he barely had time to assess. They have also drawn parallels with earlier incidents where police leadership was suspended after tragedies, while political decision-making remained untouched.
However, responding to this criticism, Home Minister G Parameshwara rejected the argument that the suspension was unfair because Nejjur had assumed charge only hours earlier. “It is not important whether he reported to duty on the same day (of incident) or one hour back. Duty is duty. He is not new to the department. IPS officers are trained to handle such situations any time. If he had acted swiftly and promptly, he could have prevented the situation from escalating.” He had said adding that Nejjur did not discharge his duties properly and that this was the reason for his suspension.
Now, fresh and unconfirmed reports suggest that Vartika Katiyar may have met a senior cabinet minister, questioning why she was made to pay the price for a situation that was political in nature. There is no official confirmation of this meeting. But the talk itself has added fuel to the debate.
What is being discussed in the state is not whether the police made mistakes. Many acknowledge that the situation on January 1 was mishandled. A clash earlier in the day was allowed to cool down without strong preventive action. Later, a banner came up near a politically sensitive location. The crowd should not have been allowed to build up. Better anticipation was needed.
At the same time, critics are asking whether the entire burden can be placed on officers when the trigger itself was political rivalry. Who installed the banner? Who mobilised supporters? Who had armed private gunmen present at the spot? These are questions that are still part of the investigation, yet administrative punishment moved faster than political accountability.
This has led to a wider comparison with past incidents, including the Bengaluru stampede after the RCB victory celebrations. There too, police officers were suspended after lives were lost, while decisions taken at higher levels were defended as unavoidable. Many are now saying Ballari fits into the same pattern.
The argument being made is not that the police are blameless. The argument is that responsibility appears to stop at the uniform. When things go wrong, officers are transferred or suspended to send a message. But when the violence is rooted in political rivalry, that message feels incomplete.
Within police ranks, there is also quiet concern about working conditions. Officers say they are expected to manage volatile political situations overnight, often with little room to push back against powerful interests. When things hold, they are invisible. When they collapse, they stand alone.
The Ballari episode has once again exposed this fault line.
For the government, the challenge is larger than one suspension or transfer. The real test is whether it is willing to publicly acknowledge political failures when law and order breaks down, instead of letting the system suggest that the police alone dropped the ball.
For now, what remains is a growing feeling across Karnataka that accountability is selective. And that whenever politics turns violent, the easiest answer is to change the officers, not the decisions that led to the violence in the first place.
