1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2152-2153 OF 2017  

(Arising out of  Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 9783-9784 OF 2017)  

                          Diary No. 38240 of 2017  

Barun Chandra Thakur            .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation and Others.   .... Respondent(s)

O R D E R  

R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) Leave granted.  

2)  The present appeal is  directed against the judgment and

order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab &

Haryana  at  Chandigarh  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  Nos.

M-35002 and 35003 of 2017 whereby learned single Judge of

the High Court had granted interim bail to Mr. Ryan Pinto, Dr.

Augustine  Francis  Pinto  and  Mrs.  Grace  Pinto-the  top

management executive of the Ryan International School till the

presentation of challan subject to certain conditions.

2

3) Brief facts:

(a) On  08.09.2017,  the  appellant  herein  dropped  his  son

Pradyumn  Thakur,  aged  7  years,  and  his  daughter,  Vidhi

Thakur  to  their  School,  viz.,  Ryan  International  School,

Bhondsi at 8:00 a.m.  At 08:10 a.m., the appellant received a

phone call of his wife who asked him to immediately call Ms.

Anju Dudeja of the said School.  When the appellant contacted

Ms. Anju Dudeja, she told him that his son had a cut on his

neck  and  is  profusely  bleeding.   She  asked  him  to  reach

Badshahpur  Hospital  where  he  was  being  taken.   The

appellant,  along with his  wife,  left  for  Badshahpur Hospital

but on the way he received a call from Ms. Anju Dudeja that

they were taking the child to Artemis Hospital.  On reaching

there, the appellant found that there was a cut on the right

side  of  his  son’s  neck  up  to  the  ear  and  his  son  was  in

Emergency Ward.  The Doctor informed the appellant that his

son Pradyumn had died.   

(b) On receipt of the information, the police recorded a First

Information  Report  (FIR)  being  No.  250  of  2017  dated

3

08.09.2017 at Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram and arrested

one Ashok Kumar, son of Amichand, on the same day.  The

State  Government  (Haryana),  issued  a  Notification  dated

17.09.2017,  requesting  the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation

(CBI) to take up the investigation.  The Ministry of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and

Training)  Government  of  India,  New Delhi,  vide  Notification

dated 22.09.2017, transferred the investigation of the case to

the CBI which re-registered the FIR already registered by the

police  authorities  as  case  bearing  No.

RC8(S)/2017/SC-III/New Delhi on 22.09.2017 itself which is a

reproduction of the FIR recorded by the police authorities at

Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram.  

(c) The  private  respondents,  viz.,  Mr.  Ryan  Pinto,  Dr.

Augustine Francis Pinto and Mrs. Grace Pinto approached the

Bombay  High  Court  by  filing  Anticipatory  Bail  Application

being  Nos.  1599  and  1608  of  2017  for  grant  of  transit/

anticipatory bail.  Learned single Judge of the High Court of

Judicature  at  Bombay,  vide  order  dated  12.09.2017  in

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1599 of 2017 granted interim

4

stay from arrest of these persons and the matter was posted

for 13.09.2017.  On coming to know about the filing of  the

above  anticipatory  bail  applications,  the  appellant  herein

approached  the  High  Court  of  Bombay  by  filing  the

intervention application opposing the transit bail.    Learned

single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 14.09.2017,

rejected the anticipatory bail applications being Nos. 1599 and

1608 of 2017.  However, the interim relief granted by the High

Court vide order dated 12.09.2017 was extended till 5:00 p.m.

of 15.09.2017 subject to certain conditions.   

(d) It may be relevant to mention here that immediately on

the  next  date  of  the  incident,  that  is,  on  09.09.2017,  a

Resolution  was  passed  by  the  District  Bar  Association,

Gurugram condemning  the  brutal  and  dastardly  act  of  the

accused  unanimously  resolving  that  no  Member  of  the  Bar

would appear/represent the accused before the Court or any

other Forum.  A similar Resolution was passed by the District

Bar Association, Sohna.   

(e) The  private  respondents  approached  the  Punjab  &

Haryana  High  Court  on  15.09.2017  by  filing  CRM-M  Nos.

5

35002 and 35003 of 2017 for grant of interim bail.  However,

the  said  petition  was  accepted  by  the  Registry  of  the  High

Court on 17.09.2017 and the copy of  the said petition was

supplied to the office of learned Advocate General for the State

of Haryana on 18.09.2017.  It appears that in the meantime,

Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto approached this Court by filing a

writ petition (criminal) being No. 139 of 2017 seeking transfer

of case from the Punjab & Haryana High Court to Delhi which

was taken up on 18.09.2017 and this Court disposed of the

writ  petition  while  deprecating  the  practice  of  the  Bar

Associations  to  pass  a  Resolution  of  this  nature  and  also

recorded the fact that the Bar Associations have withdrawn

the Resolution.     

(f) CRM-M  Nos.  35002  and  35003  of  2017  for  grant  of

interim bail  were  taken up by the  Punjab & Haryana High

Court but the effective order was passed only on 28.09.2017

staying the arrest of the private respondents till  07.10.2017

when  the  matter  was  directed  to  be  listed.   The  appellant

approached this Court by filing a petition for Special Leave to

Appeal being Diary No. 30996 of 2017 which was taken up on

6

13.10.2017  by  this  Court  when  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  informed  this  Court  that  the  appeal  had  become

infructuous.   

(g) Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment

and order dated 07.10.2017 in CRM-M Nos. 35002 and 35003

of 2017, considered the submissions made by the respective

parties  including  that  of  the  appellant  and while  fixing  the

cases  for  05.12.2017  granted  interim  bail  to  the  private

respondents with certain directions.  The operative portion of

the order dated 07.10.2017 is reproduced below:-

“It is a case where a student of a school has been murdered. After registration of the case, investigation with CBI is still at initial stage.  It is working on the theory of possibilities and trying to analyse certain facts and evidence collected so far in  the  matter.   The  petitioner  are  admittedly  resident  of Mumbai.  The question before the investigation agency is as to whether the provisions of Section 75 of the JJ Act or 12 of POCSO Act are attracted against the petitioner; whether the child was in direct and actual control of petitioners; or they have any other role in this case.

Keeping  in  view the  facts  discussed above,  I  find it appropriate  to  give  time  to  the  investigation  agency  to analyse  the  evidence  before  it,  look  into  the  role  of petitioners in this case and apprise this Court with further progress in the investigation and evidence against petitioners co9llected during investigation.

On behalf of Ryan Augustine Pinto, it has been argued that he has no concern with the Trust running Ryan Schools but a magazine of the Ryan International School, Bhondsi, Gurugram shows that it has a message with his photograph, when he is mentioned as CEO of Ryan International Group. By joining the investigation, petitioner Ryan Augustine Pinto

7

will be in a position to place required material before the CBI regarding allegations against him that he is in management of the school.

Consequently,  petitioners  in  both  the  petitions  are directed to join the investigation by the CBI  on receipt  of notice  in  this  regard.   In  the  event  of  their  arrest  being required, they will  be allowed interim bail  in case bearing FIR No. RC 8(S)/2017/SC-III/New Delhi  dated 22.09.2017 for  the offences punishable  under  Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 75 of the JJ Act and Section 12 of POCSO, Act, 2012 (earlier FIR No. 250 dated 08.09.2017 registered at Police Station Bhondsi, Gurugram) till  next  date on their  furnishing bonds to the satisfaction  of  Investigation  Agency.   However,  they  shall abide  by  the  terms  and  conditions  as  envisaged  under Section 438(2)(i) to (iv) Cr.P.C. failing which they shall loose the benefit of interim bail allowed to them.

Further report relating to investigation be submitted on the next date.

List on 05.12.2017.”         

(h) The appellant, once again approached this Court by filing

petition  for  Special  Leave  to  Appeal  (Criminal)  being  Nos.

8044-8045 of  2017 challenging  the  order  dated 07.10.2017

passed by learned single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court.  This Court, vide order dated 06.11.2017, disposed of

the  special  leave  petitions  by  requesting  the  High Court  to

dispose of the bail applications within a period of 10 (ten) days

hence.  This Court was inclined to made such request as the

High  Court  had  granted  interim  protection  to  the  private

respondents  under  Section  438  of  the  Code  of  Criminal

8

Procedure,  1973  (in  short  ‘the  Code’)  for  a  long  period.

Pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by this Court,

learned single Judge of the High Court, considered the matter

afresh and vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2017, made

absolute the interim bail granted on 07.10.2017 to the private

respondents  till  the  presentation  of  the  challan  subject  to

certain conditions.

4) We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and

perused the records.

5) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that  the

private  respondents  while  approaching  the  High  Court  for

grant  of  interim  bail/anticipatory  bail  have  concealed  and

suppressed the material facts.  He further contended that the

respondents  have  also  committed/indulged  in  fraud.

According to him, they ought to have approached the Sessions

Court,  Gurugram,  instead  of  directly  approaching  the  High

Court  when  on  15.09.2017,  the  Resolution  passed  by  the

District  Bar  Associations  Gurugram  and  Sohna  dated

09.09.2017  to  the  effect  that  no  lawyer  will  represent  the

accused in the instant matter, stood withdrawn.  He further

9

submitted  that  the  private  respondents  have  committed

heinous offence as would be clear from the averments made by

the CBI in the reply affidavit filed by it before the High Court.

A special reference was made to the following averments:-

“……The  interrogation  of  the  petitioner  is  very  much essential in the interest of investigation of the case and also to  unearth  the  larger  conspiracy  behind  the  murder  of  a seven years old boy in  his school. Any relief at this stage in the  form  of  anticipatory  bail  may  hamper  the  course  of investigation of the case as there is every possibility that he will misuse the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court.  4(1) That  the  petitioners  is  not  entitled  to  relief  (s)  as prayed for.  The petition is misconceived apart from being meritless and hence deserves to be dismissed……”  “4(J)-(P) ….Prima facie it seems that the careless attitude of the  Management  has  aided  to  the  murder  of  Master Pradhyuman in the washroom of the school and accordingly local  police  arrested  two  school  officials  namely  Francis Thomas and Jayesh Thomas in the instant case.  10. That the contention of petitioner at paragraph 10 of the petition are opposed by the prosecution on the following grounds:

i) That CBI has taken up the investigation of the case  and the  investigation of  this  case  is  still pending  at  crucial  stage.   Larger  conspiracy behind the murder of a seven year old boy is yet to be unearthed.  

iii) That the possibility of him being members of the conspiracy  behind  the  murder  of  Master Pradhuman  in  the  washroom  of  Ryan International  School,  Sohna  Road,  Bhondsi, Gurugram  on  08.09.2017  and  its  abetment, destruction  of  the  evidence  by  him cannot  be ruled  out  as  he  is  within  the  ambit  of investigation and he is to be dealt by the law at par with other accused.  

iv) That CBI has taken up the investigation of this case  on 22.09.2017,  the  records of  the  school

10

management  and  those  of  the  head  office  of Ryan  International  Group  of  Institutions  have not been collected by CBI and the investigation is at a preliminary stage.”

Learned counsel, thus, contended that even the CBI, on the

materials  and possibilities  of  the  involvement  of  the  private

respondents,  had  opposed  the  plea  of  grant  of  interim

bail/anticipatory bail, and therefore, the High Court ought not

to have granted interim bail to them.

6) Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  private  respondents,

however, submitted that from a reading of the FIR registered

by  the  Police  Station,  Bhondsi,  Gurugram,  which  was

re-registered  by  the  CBI,  there  is  no  allegation  against  the

private  respondents.   Learned  senior  counsel  further

submitted that even the CBI in the reply affidavit filed before

the High Court as also the documents produced before learned

single  Judge at  the  time of  hearing of  the  matter  does not

show any involvement of the private respondents in the alleged

offence.  He, thus, submitted that the order dated 21.11.2017

passed  by  learned  single  Judge  does  not  call  for  any

interference.

11

7) We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the

various pleas raised by learned counsel for the parties.  

8) In  our  considered  opinion,  the  private  respondents

cannot  be  held  guilty  of  any  suppression,  concealment  or

fraud in this matter for the simple reason that the petitions

were prepared on 15.09.2017 and accepted by the Registry of

the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 17.09.2017.  The fact

relating  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  Resolution  passed  by  the

District  Bar  Associations,   Gurugram and Sohna cannot be

said  to  be  in  the  knowledge  of  the  private  respondents.

Moreover,  this  plea  had  been  dealt  with  by  learned  single

Judge in the order dated 07.10.2017 and had been negated.   

9) Further,  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  this

incident  had  received  wide  coverage  in  the  media,  both

electronic and print.  In fact, it can be said that there was a

trial by media, therefore, when the private respondents have

directly  approached  the  High  Court  for  grant  of

anticipatory/interim bail under Section 438 of the Code, that

too  when  the  High  Court  has  concurrent  jurisdiction,  we

12

cannot  find  any  fault  with  the  action  of  the  private

respondents.

10) Coming to the merits of the case, on going through the

FIR registered by the Police Station, Bhondsi dated 08.09.2017

which admittedly has been re-registered by the CBI, we find

that  no  allegation  has  been  made  against  the  private

respondents herein.  Learned single Judge of the High Court,

after considering the material and evidence on record as also

the material produced by the CBI before it has held as under:-

“14. From the submissions of  learned retainer counsel for CBI, it appears that against petitioners investigation of the case  and  the  evidence  collected  by  investigating  agency stand at the same stage as it  was on 07.10.2017.  While allowing interim relief  to the  petitioners on 28.09.2017,  it was ordered that if required, petitioners will  be called and joined in investigation of the case, however, till 07.10.2017, they were never called to join the investigation.  Vide order dated  07.10.2017,  petitioners  in  both  the  petitions  were directed to join the investigation on receipt of notice in this regard and it has been fairly conceded that no notice calling upon the petitioners to join investigation have been issued till date.”  

16. In para 9 of preliminary submissions, it has again been submitted  that  here  is  possibility  of  petitioners  being member of conspiracy behind the crime in this case.  In para 12 of the para-wise reply, it has been stated that CBI has yet to examine and analyze the role of petitioners in this case. Similar  pleas  have  also  been  raised  in  the  reply  filed  in petition CRM-M-35002-2017.

17. The question, which arise for consideration at this stage is as to whether CBI intends to arrest petitioner without any

13

evidence of their complicity in the crime only on the basis of possibilities and probabilities.  The answer to this question will  be  in  negative.   It  is  not  disputed  that  in  the investigation conducted so far, there is not even a pointer of involvement of petitioners in the crime in this case.  Some lapse  or  negligence  on the  part  of  school  management  or even of the trustees or other office bearer of the school  if found at any point of time, may not be a pointer towards their  complicity  in  commission  of  murder  of  a  school student, until and unless there is some substantial evidence of their involvement in this crime.  While passing order dated 07.10.2017,  it  was  observed  that  CBI  “is  working  on  the theory of possibilities and trying to analyze certain facts and evidence collected so far  in the mater,  as such,  it  will  be appropriate to give time to investigating agency to analyze the evidence before it, look into the role of petitioners in this case  and apprise  this  Court  with  further  progress  in  the investigation  and  evidence  against  petitioners  collected during  investigation.   Till  date,  status  of  investigation against the petitioners is at the same stage as it was on the date of passing of order dated 07.10.2017.  It is a case where a  seven  years  old  student  of  the  school  was  brutally murdered  in  the  school.   It  is  not  only  an  unfortunate incident  but  also a  gruesome and heinous crime and the State Government thought it  appropriate to hand over the investigation  of  the  case  to  CBI,  a  premier  investigating agency  of  the  country.   As  admitted  by  learned  counsel representing CBI, petitioners have not ever been called for joining the investigation and CBI has arrested a student of the school as main accused for murder of Pradyumn and is concentrating on his role in committing the crime.  It has not come  on  record  that  this  crime  with  committed  by  the conductor (Ashok), who was arrested by the police on the day of occurrence or the student arrested by the CBI in this case, in conspiracy with the petitioners or he had ever any contact with them.  Petitioners Dr. Augustine Francis Pinto and Mrs. Grace Pinto (in CRM-M-35003-2017) are trustees of Saint Xavier’s Education Trust, which is running several school  in  the  country.   The  status  of  petitioner  Ryan Augustine Pinto (in CM-M-35002-2017)  with regard to the management of the school in which crime was committed is yet to be ascertained.  It will also be a point of investigation for the Investigating Agency as to whether the petitioners, while living in Mumbai, are directly responsible for any lapse of the Administration in the School.”  

14

 11) Thus, as on date, the CBI is yet to examine and analyse

the role of the private respondents in this case and there is no

evidence of their complicity in the crime and there is not even

a pointer of involvement of respondents herein in the alleged

crime.   Their  involvement  cannot  be  established  until  and

unless,  there  is  some  substantial  evidence  against  them.

Learned single Judge, while granting interim bail to the private

respondents  till  the  presentation  of  Challan  had  laid  down

certain conditions which are as follows:-

“As a result of my above discussion, I find merits in both the petitions and the same are allowed.  Order dated 07.10.2017 granting interim bail to the petitioners is made absolute, till the presentation of Challan, subject to the following terms:-

(i) that  the  petitioners  shall  make  themselves available  for  interrogation  by  the  investigating agency as and when required;

(ii) that  the  petitioners  shall  not,  directly  or indirectly,  make  any  inducement,  threat  or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to investigating agency;

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.  

(iv) that the petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of Challan in Court.”

15

12) In our considered opinion, without expressing anything

on the merits of  the case as the investigation is still  under

progress and the CBI is yet to come to a conclusion regarding

the involvement of the private respondents in the crime, the

private respondents herein have made out a case for grant of

protection  by  way  of  interim  bail  till  the  presentation  of

Challan  by  the  CBI  as  has  been  passed  by  learned  single

Judge.  Therefore, the order passed by learned single Judge

granting  interim  bail  to  the  answering  respondents  till  the

presentation of Challan cannot be faulted with.

13) In view of the foregoing discussion, we therefore, do not

find  any  good  ground  to  interfere  with  the  order  dated

21.11.2017 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court.

The appeal is dismissed.  However, the parties shall bear their

own costs.         

………………….……………………J.                (R.K. AGRAWAL)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.         (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)         

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 11, 2017.