Pune Porsche case: Teen walks out as HC ends custody in hit-and-run case
Bombay HC orders release of minor involved in fatal Porsche accident, ruling his continued incarceration unlawful
The Bombay high court on Tuesday ordered the release of the minor involved in the May 19 high-speed Porsche accident in which two people lost their lives, ruling that through the accident was unfortunate, his continued incarceration was unlawful.
The court, hearing a habeas corpus petitionfiled by the boy’s paternal aunt,ruled that the minor be placed under her care.
“We allow the habeas corpus petition and order his release. We are bound by law. The aims and objectives of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act must treat him as any child in conflict with the law separately from adults, despite the seriousness of the crime,” a bench of justice Bharati Dangre and justice Manjusha Deshpande ruled.
Also Read | Pune Porsche crash: Bombay HC raises concerns over juvenile’s mental health
“Although the accident was unfortunate, the detention was illegal,” it added.
The minor, allegedly driving the sports car at high speed while intoxicated, crashed into a bike, killing two software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune.
The boy’s father, mother and grandfather are all in judicial custody over a slew of charges.
The case, and the subsequent expeditious bail granted to the minor under provisions of the JJ Act drew sharp criticism and a flurry of protests. Under the bail conditions, the minor was required to work with Yerwada traffic police for 15 days and write an essay on the accident.
Pune police then filed a review petition before JJB, asking that the boy be tried as an adult and requesting a review of the May 19 order.
The court highlighted the minor’s ongoing rehabilitation, including sessions with a psychologist, and suggested the state’s action was an “immediate” reaction to the incident. The bench had reserved its order on June 21.
Also Read | A month after Porsche crash, things changed on ground for good
There was outrage soon after the incident as the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) granted the 17-year-old bail the same day, ordering that he be placed under the care and supervision of his parents and grandfather, and instructing him to write a 300-word essay on road safety.
However, the bail order was amended amid public anger, and the juvenile was sent to an observation home in Pune, where he has been detained since. Pooja Jain, the juvenile’s paternal aunt, approached the court on June 14, seeking his immediate release.
During Friday’s hearing, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Jain, argued that the remand orders were not only illegal but also passed without jurisdiction. He contended that the State should have applied for the cancellation of bail with an appropriate appellate authority rather than seeking an amendment of the bail order, which is not permissible under the Juvenile Justice Act.
“The bail is neither cancelled, nor altered, nor set aside by a superior court. It’s not a case of rearrest either. How can the board resort to the amendment of the bail order under the Act, when he has not been sent to an observation home in the first place?” Ponda asked. “You cannot turn back the clock. Had bail been refused, he could have been sent to an observation home. But having been granted bail, how can he be sent back to an observation home?”
Ponda emphasised that the juvenile is 17 years and 8 months old and that a person released on bail under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be sent to an observation home. He also said that the state’s amendment application, which stated that they did not intend to cancel the bail while he was in the observation home, was absurd.
When the court asked the police why it did not move an application for cancellation of bail, public prosecutor Hiten Vengaonkar replied that the state never intended to cancel the bail, and that the confinement is not a remand as defined under the Criminal Procedure Code. He said that the boy was kept in the observation home for his safety, as there was no one fit to claim his custody, and no one had since applied for his release.
Vengaonkar further said that the initial order bail was “rightly or wrongly passed”, and that the blood samples of the juvenile were tampered with.
The teen’s parents were arrested for their suspected role in swapping of blood samples of the juvenile. The minor’s mother on June 1admitted to evidence-tampering, saying she switched his blood samples to conceal the fact that he was inebriated.
