Pune Porsche Case: Bombay HC Grants Bail to Minor Accused | Watch What Their Lawyer Said
The Bombay High Court today granted bail to the juvenile accused in the Pune car accident case, ordering the release of the minor into the care and custody of his paternal aunt.
The court directed that the minor’s sessions with the psychologist should continue.
“We allow the petition and order his release. The CCL (Child in Conflict with Law) shall be in the care and custody of the petitioner (paternal aunt),” the court said.
The bench noted the JJB’s remand orders were illegal and passed without jurisdiction. The paternal aunt of the minor had approached the High Court, alleging unlawful detention of the minor in an observation home.
The court said amid the “immediate reaction to the accident, the kneejerk reaction and the public outcry, the CCL’s age was not considered.”
“The CCL is under 18 years old. His age needs to be considered,” the bench said.
It said the court was bound by law, the aims and objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act, and must treat him as any child in conflict with law separately from adults, despite the seriousness of the crime.
“CCLs are to be considered differently,” the HC said.
‘Juvenile in Trauma’, Says HC
Last week, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed that remanding the minor to an observation home after granting bail nullifies the purpose of bail. “Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma but the child (juvenile) was also in trauma,” the court had said.
Advocate Prashant Patil, representing the juvenile’s father, confirmed the bail decision. He argued that Section 75 of the JJ Act is non-cognizable and does not warrant arrest.
#WATCH | पुणे कार अपघात प्रकरणी मुंबई उच्च न्यायालयाच्या पुणे खंडपीठानं अल्पवयीन आरोपीला केला जामीन मंजूर.
— AIR News Pune (@airnews_pune) June 25, 2024
♦️ अल्पवयीन आरोपीचा ताबा त्याच्या आत्याला देण्यात आला. pic.twitter.com/IteGUlL5i0
The High Court scrutinized the actions of the police regarding the detention of a minor in an observation home following his bail in a high-profile Porsche crash case. The bench highlighted that the police had not sought a higher court’s intervention to cancel the bail order issued by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Instead, the police filed an application to amend the bail order, leading to the minor’s custody and remand to an observation home.
The court expressed concern over this procedure. “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 bench questioned.
The judges emphasized that the minor was removed from his family’s care and confined to an observation home despite being granted bail. “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,” the High Court stated.
The May Crash that Killed 2 Techies
The incident, which took place in Pune, involved a speeding Porsche car allegedly driven by the juvenile in an intoxicated state, resulting in the deaths of two IT professionals on May 19. This case has attracted national attention, especially after the Juvenile Justice Board member, L. N. Danwade, granted bail to the minor with lenient conditions, including writing a 300-word essay on road safety.
Last week, a sessions court in Pune granted bail to the father of the juvenile, who is implicated in multiple related cases. Despite the bail, he remains in custody due to other charges, including tampering with blood samples for alcohol tests and coercing his driver to falsely admit guilt for the accident. The court also granted bail to five other individuals, including the owner and managers of two bars accused of serving alcohol to underage patrons.
The legal proceedings have revealed multiple layers of allegations. The primary case addresses the accident, while additional charges involve the juvenile’s father and the bar establishments. These charges include permitting the minor to drive without a valid license and serving alcohol to a minor. The father faces charges under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) for cruelty to a child, and the bar staff are charged under Section 77 for supplying intoxicating substances to a minor.
