Bombay High Court Orders Release of Minor in Controversial Pune Porsche Accident Case
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a minor accused in the Pune Porsche accident case into the care and custody of his paternal aunt. The decision was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, who allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the minor’s paternal aunt.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on May 19, 2024. The 17-year-old son of a prominent Pune builder, allegedly driving a Porsche Taycan under the influence of alcohol, lost control of the vehicle and collided with a motorcycle in the Kalyani Nagar area. The accident resulted in the deaths of two individuals.
On the day of the accident, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) granted bail to the minor. However, on May 22, 2024, the JJB remanded him to an observation home, citing concerns for his safety and well-being. This remand was subsequently extended.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The High Court found the remand orders passed by the JJB to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The bench criticized the JJB for remanding the minor to an observation home after he had been granted bail, noting that this action “completely nullified the effect of bail.”
During the hearings, the court questioned the JJB’s authority to remand the minor to an observation home once bail had been granted. The bench emphasized that the minor’s inability to attend court-ordered counseling sessions due to fears of mob lynching was a significant concern.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing the petitioner, argued that once bail is granted to a juvenile, they cannot be placed in an observation home. He stressed that the bail was still operative, and the minor had not been rearrested on additional charges, nor had there been any move to cancel the bail by a superior court. Ponda highlighted that the minor was being detained illegally and argued that under Section 39(2) of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, a remand without cancelling bail is impermissible.
Prosecution’s Arguments
Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar contended that the minor was released into the custody of a “fit person,” his grandfather, rather than on his own bail bond. With the grandfather and the minor’s parents in custody, Venegavkar argued that it was necessary to place the minor in an observation home under the supervision of a probation officer. He maintained that this action was for the minor’s safety and well-being, considering the unavailability of a fit person to take custody.
Venegavkar clarified that the state did not seek to cancel the bail but felt that sending the minor to an observation home was essential under the circumstances. He referenced Section 104 of the JJ Act, which allows for such measures when the minor’s safety and well-being are at stake.
Conclusion
After considering the arguments, the Bombay High Court ordered the minor’s release into the care of his paternal aunt and directed that the court-ordered counseling sessions with a psychologist continue post-release.
Case TItle: – Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra
