Who may try a juvenile directed to be tried as an adult? Not a Special CBI Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled: the Gurugram school murder trial will stay with the Children’s Court at Gurugram.
Chandigarh: Dismissing a petition that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed in 2018, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 30, 2026 refused to move the trial of the juvenile accused in the 2017 murder of a seven-year-old student inside a Gurugram school out of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children’s Court, Gurugram. The CBI had sought transfer to the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, or in the alternative to a Children’s Court at Panchkula [Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Haryana and Others].
Justice Manisha Batra held that the power of transfer under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to take the trial of a child in conflict with law to a court of a different character. The Children’s Court at Gurugram was directed to make every endeavour to conclude the trial within six months.
A forum fixed by the JJ Act
The Court examined the Haryana Government notification of February 8, 2012 and found that it was issued under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and appoints the CBI Court at Panchkula as Special Judge only for PC Act offences. The DSPE Act notifications of September 2017, it found, only extended the CBI’s power to investigate and said nothing about the forum of trial. It summed up:
“The trial of respondent No. 2, who has been directed to be tried as an adult, is to be held by the Children’s Court having jurisdiction under Section 18(3) read with Section 1(4) of the JJ Act. This requirement is a sine qua non, and the power of transfer under Section 407 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to take the trial to a Court of a different character.”
Section 1(4) of the JJ Act opens with a non obstante clause and expressly covers the prosecution of children in conflict with law, the Court noted, while Section 19 requires the Children’s Court to ensure a child-friendly atmosphere, an individual care plan and placement in a place of safety. A trial before the CBI Court would, it warned, put the foundation of the proceedings in jeopardy. The Court distinguished Yakub Memon on the ground that TADA had lapsed before Section 1(4) was inserted into the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 in 2006, and held that the State’s no-objection could not confer jurisdiction where none existed.
No case for a transfer to Panchkula
On the alternative prayer for transfer to a Children’s Court at Panchkula, Justice Manisha Batra found no ground under Section 407 CrPC:
“No material has been placed before this Court to show that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had at Gurugram. There is no allegation of bias against the trial Court, nor is it alleged that the State machinery is acting in collusion with the accused.”
Section 23 of the JJ Act bars joint proceedings of a child with a person who is not a child, the Court also noted, so the two trials must in any case run separately. A transfer at this advanced stage, it added, would only delay a trial that has been under way for several years.
The 2017 killing and the road to the High Court
On September 8, 2017, a Class II student was found murdered in a ground-floor washroom of his school in Gurugram. FIR No. 250 was registered the same day under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and provisions of the Arms Act, and the investigation was transferred to the CBI later that month.
In November 2017, the CBI apprehended a senior student of the same school who was below 18 years of age on the date of the incident. It filed its charge sheet against him under Section 302 IPC before the Children’s Court, Gurugram, and a bus conductor arrested earlier by the local police was discharged.
Whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult travelled up to the Supreme Court. A fresh preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 again led the Juvenile Justice Board to hold that he must be tried as an adult, and in 2023 the High Court dismissed his challenge and directed that the trial be expedited. The CBI’s transfer petition, filed in 2018, remained pending throughout.
What the CBI, the State and the juvenile argued
Once it took over the investigation, the Special Judge, CBI, Panchkula, which hears CBI cases from all of Haryana, had exclusive jurisdiction, the CBI argued. It pointed out that the case against the adult accused arising from the same FIR, including police officials, was pending at Panchkula and that the evidence in the two cases was intertwined. Relying on Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, it contended that juvenile justice law does not override a special enactment.
The State of Haryana had no objection to the transfer, and the father of the deceased child supported the CBI’s plea so that both trials could be held by the same court. The juvenile accused opposed the petition, arguing that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act overrides all other laws, that the CBI notifications concern only investigation, and that the CBI had itself filed the charge sheet at Gurugram, where a substantial number of witnesses had already been examined.
Directions for the trial
The Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Children’s Court, Gurugram, was directed to conclude the trial preferably within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order, subject to cooperation by the parties. The CBI must ensure the presence of its witnesses on the dates fixed, and the trial court may record the evidence of official and outstation witnesses through video conferencing. The Court made clear that nothing in its order is an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The charge against the juvenile remains to be proved at trial, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
What the judgment settles
The identity of the investigating agency does not decide the forum of trial, the ruling settles. A Special CBI Court derives its jurisdiction from the statute and notification that create it, and a CBI investigation into an ordinary IPC offence does not carry the case into that court.
The JJ Act’s safeguards, it also reinforces, travel with a child even when the child is tried as an adult. The Children’s Court is a forum of a distinct character under Section 18(3), and transfer powers under the CrPC can move a juvenile’s trial only from one Children’s Court to another.
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Haryana and Others [CRM-M-24867-2018 (O&M)]
Bench: Justice Manisha Batra, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner-CBI; Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State; Viraj Gandhi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2; Sushil K. Tekriwal, Advocate, for the complainant
If you know of a child in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.