The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition that challenged the anticipatory bail granted to the trustees of Ryan International School in connection with the murder of a student on its Gurugram campus in September, ANI reported.
On September 8, a Class 2 student was found with his throat slit inside a washroom of the Gurugram school. An autopsy revealed injuries on the boy’s neck, inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon, were the cause of death. The Gurugram Police initially arrested a bus conductor, but the Central Bureau of Investigation detained a 16-year-old Class 11 student of the same school for the crime on November 8.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Ryan International Group Chief Executive Officer Ryan Pinto and his parents – founding chairman Augustine Pinto and Managing Director Grace Pinto – on November 21.
Following this, the Class 2 student’s father had filed a petition challenging the bail. On December 1, a Supreme Court judge had recused himself from hearing the petition. It was then referred to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra for listing before an appropriate bench. On December 6, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict.
The student’s father, in his petition, had claimed that since the CBI was still investigating the case, granting anticipatory bail at this stage would “frustrate the criminal justice delivery system”, according to PTI.
In his petition, the father had said, “The manner in which the conspiracy has been hatched to kill him and the manner in which the entire scene of crime has been destroyed, decorated and ornamented, it clearly appears that the directions may have come from some high-ups to the school authorities and the possibility of the involvement of Pinto family at this stage cannot be ruled out in any manner whatsoever and howsoever.”
In their bail petitions, the Pintos had said that it was unimaginable that they could be involved in the crime. “We apprehend that the agencies may, under pressure from the wrath of public opinion, fail to fully appreciate the legal position,” they had said. “Notwithstanding the diabolical nature of the crime...the ends of justice call for an objective evaluation of the circumstances.”