The Bombay High Court today ordered the custody and custody of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche accident case.
A division bench of Justice Bharti Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by the maternal grandmother of the minor accused, who is currently in an observation home, seeking his release.
The court declared the remand orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) as illegal and without jurisdiction.
The court has directed that the JJB has ordered to continue the counseling sessions with the psychologist after the release of the minor.
During the hearing last week, the court had questioned how the Juvenile Justice Board could have sent the juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche accident case to an observation home when he was already out on bail.
The bench had remarked that the remand and subsequent extension had “completely extinguished the effect of bail.”
The bench had already questioned the source of the power to remand a juvenile to an observation home after being granted bail.
The court observed that the minor could not attend court-ordered counseling sessions due to fears of mob violence.
The incident took place on May 19, 2024, when the 17-year-old son of a prominent Pune builder, allegedly driving a Porsche Tycoon under the influence of alcohol, lost control and hit a motorcycle in the Kalyaninagar area. gave As a result of the collision, two people were killed who succumbed to their injuries.
The JJB granted bail to the minor driver on May 19, 2023, hours after the fatal accident. However, on 22 May 2024, the JJB sent the juvenile accused to an observation home. After that he was remanded. His parents and grandfather are also in custody in related cases. A court in Pune last week granted bail to the father in a case under the Motor Vehicle Act.
The court had noted that the prosecution had never filed an application to cancel the bail granted to the minor and said it would not deny relief on the grounds of retention.
Aba Ponda, senior advocate for the petitioner, argued that a juvenile, once granted bail, cannot be placed in an observation home. He stressed that the bail is subsisting till date and the minor has neither been re-arrested on additional charges nor has the bail been canceled by any high court.
Ponda asserted that the minor had been detained illegally. He highlighted that instead of challenging the bail order, authorities filed a petition citing various concerns, including public outrage and alleged addiction of the minor. Ponda argued that a juvenile cannot be sent to an observation home while on bail, citing Section 39(2) of the JJ Act. He said that ordering remand without canceling bail is not permissible even under strict laws like MCOCA or TADA, let alone the JJ Act.
Public prosecutor Hitan Venegawkar argued that the minor was released in the custody of a fit person, his grandfather, and not on his own bail. He claimed that since the grandfather and parents were in custody, the minor had to stay in an observation home under the supervision of a probation officer. Venegawkar submitted that the JJB merely changed the person who was supposed to be in charge of the minor.
Venegawker maintained that the state did not want to revoke the bail but that it was necessary to send him to an observation home for the safety and welfare of the minor. Venegawkar submitted that under Section 104 of the JJ Act not only availability of fit person but also other surrounding circumstances should be considered.
Case Title – Pooja Gagan Jain Vs State of Maharashtra