The Bombay High Court today ordered the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche accident case into the care and custody of his paternal aunt.
A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the paternal aunt of the minor accused, who is currently in an observation home, seeking his release.
The court declared the impugned remand orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) illegal and without jurisdiction.
The court has directed that the JJB ordered counselling sessions with a psychologist should continue post the minor’s release.
During the hearing last week, the court had questioned how the Juvenile Justice Board could have remanded the minor accused in the Pune Porsche accident case to an observation home when he had already been released on bail.
The bench had remarked that the remand and its subsequent extension “completely nullified the effect of bail.”
The bench had questioned the source of power to remand a juvenile to an observation home once bail has already been granted.
The court had observed that the minor could not attend court ordered counselling sessions due to concerns of mob lynching.
The incident occurred on May 19, 2024, when the 17-year-old son of a prominent Pune builder, allegedly driving a Porche Taycan car under the influence of alcohol, lost control and hit a motorcycle in the Kalyani Nagar area. The collision resulted in the deaths of two individuals who succumbed to their injuries.
JJB granted bail to the minor driver on May 19, 2023, hours after the fatal accident. However, on May 22, 2024, the JJB remanded the teenager accused to an observation home. His remand was subsequently. His parents and grandfather are also in custody in related cases. A Pune court had granted bail to the father last week in the case under Motor Vehicles Act
The court had noted that the prosecution never filed any application to cancel the bail granted to the minor and stated that it would not deny relief on the grounds of maintainability.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda for the petitioner argued that a juvenile, once granted bail, cannot be placed in an observation home. He emphasized that the bail was operative till date and that the minor had neither been rearrested on additional charges nor had there been any bail cancellation by a superior court.
Ponda asserted that the minor was under illegal detention. He highlighted that instead of challenging the bail order, the authorities filed an application citing various concerns, including public outrage and the minor’s alleged addiction. Ponda argued that the minor could not be sent to an observation home while on bail, citing Section 39(2) of the JJ Act. He stated that ordering remand without cancelling the bail is not permissible even under stringent laws like MCOCA or TADA, let alone the JJ Act.
Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar argued that the juvenile was released in the custody of a fit person, his grandfather, not on his own bail bond. He contended that since the grandfather and parents were in custody, the minor had to be in an observation home under the supervision of a probation officer. Venegavkar submitted that the JJB merely changed the person under whose supervision the minor had to be.
Venegavkar maintained that the state does not want to cancel the bail but sending him to the observation home was necessary for the minor’s safety and well-being. Not only the availability of a fit person but other surrounding circumstances have to be considered under section 104 of the JJ Act, Venegavkar submitted.
Case Title – Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra
