The Bombay High Court said Today (June 21st) that the teen accused in the Pune Porsche accident was also in trauma and he should be given some time. The Court said this while pointing to the approach of the Pune police in the way the minor was first granted bail and then suddenly, amidst mounting public pressure, was put in an observation home.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[Pune Porsche Case] "Is it Not Confinement if Juvenile is Kept in Custody After Bail?": Asks HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/ADBTRM.jpg?resize=750%2C450&ssl=1)
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court raised critical questions about the legal grounds for the confinement of a juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche accident case. The minor, initially granted bail, was subsequently taken into custody and placed in an observation home, leading to the court’s scrutiny of the legal processes involved.
A division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande presided over the hearing, addressing the tragic incident and the procedural anomalies that followed. Acknowledging the severity of the accident, the court remarked,
“Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma but the child (juvenile) was also in trauma.”
The case revolves around an incident that occurred in the early hours of May 19, when a 17-year-old, allegedly intoxicated, was driving a Porsche at high speed in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar. The vehicle collided with a bike, resulting in the deaths of two software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. This tragic event not only caused immense grief to the victims’ families but also led to widespread public outrage.
Initially, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) granted the juvenile bail on the same day, stipulating that he be placed under the care and supervision of his parents and grandfather. Additionally, the juvenile was instructed to write a 300-word essay on road safety as part of his bail conditions.
However, the quick release on bail triggered a nationwide uproar. Responding to the public outcry, the police petitioned the JJB to amend the bail order. On May 22, the JJB revised its decision, ordering the juvenile to be taken into custody and placed in an observation home. This move prompted the juvenile’s paternal aunt to file a habeas corpus petition, alleging illegal detention and seeking his immediate release.
During the hearing on Friday, the High Court critically examined the procedural steps taken by the authorities. The bench expressed surprise that the police had not filed an application before a higher court to cancel the bail order. Instead, the police had sought an amendment to the bail order from the JJB, which led to the juvenile’s confinement.
The court questioned the legality of this approach, stating,
“What type of remand is this? What is the power to remand? What kind of procedure is this where a person has been granted bail and then a remand is passed taking him in custody?”
The judges emphasized the inconsistency in removing the minor from the care of his family and placing him in an observation home, despite being granted bail. The bench stated,
“He is a person who has been granted bail, but now he has been confined to an observation home. Is this not confinement? We would like to know your source of power.”
Furthermore, the court underscored the responsibility of the Juvenile Justice Board, questioning why the police did not pursue an application for the cancellation of bail through the appropriate judicial channels. The bench pointed out the procedural flaws, noting,
“The bench said it also expected the Juvenile Justice Board to be responsible.”
The High Court has reserved its order on the habeas corpus petition and announced that it would deliver its judgment on Tuesday, June 25. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the interpretation of juvenile justice procedures and the legal framework surrounding the confinement of minors.
![[Pune Porsche Case] "Is it Not Confinement if Juvenile is Kept in Custody After Bail?": Asks HC](https://lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-2.avif)
During the hearing, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar defended the actions taken by the authorities. He asserted that the remand orders passed by the JJB were valid, thus requiring no interference. Venegaonkar acknowledged the controversy, stating,
“On May 19, the JJB bail order was ‘rightly or wrongly’ passed, and also the blood samples of the juvenile were tampered with.”
He further emphasized,
“Action has been taken against the errant officers and doctors. We have to send a strong message to society. Just writing a 300-word essay is not enough.”
Contrastingly, Senior Counsel Aabad Ponda argued that the juvenile’s fundamental rights had been violated. He contended,
“A free citizen’s personal liberty has been trampled upon. Can a child be taken in custody when he has been granted bail and the bail order is in force?”
Ponda questioned the legal basis for reviewing and amending a bail order in such a manner, stating,
“You cannot turn back the clock. Had bail been refused, CCL could have been sent to an observation home. But having been granted bail, how can he be sent back to an observation home?”
He highlighted that such actions are unprecedented, even in serious offenses under stringent laws like the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, questioning,
“How can the police do this in a juvenile’s case?”
The boy’s aunt, in her plea, claimed that public uproar and political agendas influenced the police to deviate from proper investigative procedures, undermining the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act’s purpose. The teenager remains in an observation home until June 25.
The bench expressed surprise at the police’s failure to file an application before a higher court to cancel the bail order, instead opting to amend it. The court questioned the legality of this approach, asking,
“What type of remand is this? What is the power to remand? What kind of procedure is this where a person has been granted bail and then a remand is passed taking him in custody?”
The judges emphasized the inconsistency in removing the minor from his family’s care and placing him in an observation home, despite being granted bail. The bench remarked,
“He is a person who has been granted bail, but now he has been confined to an observation home. Is this not confinement? We would like to know your source of power.”
Moreover, the court underscored the Juvenile Justice Board’s responsibility, questioning why the police did not seek bail cancellation through appropriate judicial channels. The court reserved its order on the habeas corpus petition and announced that it would deliver its judgment on Tuesday, June 25. The outcome of this case will significantly impact interpretations of juvenile justice procedures and the legal framework for confining minors.
The High Court’s scrutiny of procedural lapses underscores the delicate balance between upholding justice and ensuring juvenile offenders’ welfare. As the legal community and the public await the court’s decision, the case continues to draw attention to the complexities of juvenile justice in India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Pune Porsche Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
