The Bombay High Court recently addressed the Pune Porsche accident involving a minor accused, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the rule of law despite public outcry. The court underscored that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) had no authority to detain the minor once bail was granted, despite the serious nature of the accident that resulted in two fatalities. The High Court criticized the prosecution's handling of the case, highlighting the need for the legal process to prioritize justice over public pressure.
Detailed Summary:
Incident and Initial Proceedings: On May 19, 2024, a Porsche driven by a minor crashed into a motorcycle, killing two riders. The minor was accused of driving under the influence and at high speed. An FIR was filed against the minor for various offences, including those under the IPC and Motor Vehicles Act. Following the incident, the minor faced public outrage and was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on the same day.
Prosecution's Application: On May 21, 2024, the prosecution sought to review the bail order under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, presenting new evidence of the minor's intoxication and reckless driving. The JJB issued an amended order, placing the minor in an Observation Home for rehabilitation, citing discrepancies in investigation reports and the need for psychological treatment due to public anger.
Court's Critique of JJB's Actions: The Bombay High Court criticized the JJB's order, stating it lacked jurisdiction and was mechanically passed without considering that the minor was already on bail. The court highlighted that Section 104 does not empower the Board to re-detain a child already granted bail. The subsequent extensions of the minor's stay in the Observation Home were also deemed illegal.
Principles of Juvenile Justice: The court emphasized that minors must be treated according to the Juvenile Justice Act, which aims to handle children in conflict with the law separately from adults. The court stressed that justice must be prioritized over public uproar, and the law should be implemented objectively, irrespective of the hardship it might entail.
Verdict and Legal Standpoint: The High Court ordered the release of the minor, reiterating that once bail is granted, a child cannot be placed in an Observation Home under the pretext of rehabilitation. The court underscored that adherence to the rule of law is paramount, even in cases involving significant public and emotional impact.
Legal Representation: Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, along with a team of advocates, represented the petitioner (the minor’s paternal aunt), while Public Prosecutor Hiten Vanegavkar represented the state. The case, titled "XYZ v. State of Maharashtra," highlighted the judiciary's role in upholding the law amidst public and media pressure.
In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's decision in the Pune Porsche accident case reaffirms the importance of following legal principles and protecting the rights of minors, even in the face of severe public and emotional reactions. The ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's duty to implement the law impartially and justly.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.