Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (June 25, 2024) ordered the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case, emphasising that the accused in the present case must receive the same treatment, which every other child in conflict with law (CCL) is entitled to receive.

Highlighting the latin phrase ‘Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum’ which means “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”, the court stated that this principle in law clearly conveys “that justice must be realized regardless of consequences and Just decisions may be made at whatever cost it comes.”

The division bench comprising Justice Bharathi Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande made the observation that “It is our bounden duty to prioritize justice above everything else, and definitely, we are not swayed away by the uproar created upon occurrence of the ghastly mishap, for which allegedly the CCL is personally responsible and which has resulted in loss of two innocent lives. We have all sympathies for the victim and their families but as a Court of Law, we are bound to implement the law as it stands.”

The court strongly criticised the "haphazard manner" in which the prosecution and law enforcement agencies handled the situation under public pressure. It stated that “The outcry, as a knee jerk reaction to the accident, resulting into a clarion call of “see the accused’s action and not his age", will have to be overlooked upon assimilating that the CCL is a child under the Juvenile Justice Act, being under 18 years and regardless of his crime.”

The accident occurred in the early hours of May 19, 2024, when a 17-year-old minor, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, crashed a Porsche into a motorcycle, killing two riders instantly. The minor faced public outrage and was manhandled before being apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in Pune.

An FIR was filed against the minor under multiple sections of the IPC and the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite initial bail, the prosecution filed an application under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, following new evidence, including CCTV footage of the minor consuming alcohol before the incident.

On May 22, 2024, the JJB issued an amended order to place the minor in an Observation Home for rehabilitation, citing discrepancies in investigation reports and the need for the minor's psychological treatment and safety. This order led to extensions of the minor's stay in the Observation Home until June 25, 2024.

The minor’s paternal aunt filed a writ of habeas corpus for his release, arguing that the minor could not be placed in an Observation Home once bail was granted. The court noted that the Juvenile Justice Act aims to protect children in conflict with the law and specifies conditions for granting bail unless it poses a risk to the child or public.

The court held that Section 104, which allows the Board to amend its orders regarding the care of a child, cannot be used to deprive a child of liberty if already on bail. The JJB's order to confine the minor despite bail was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction. The court stated that the subsequent orders extending the minor's detention were passed in a mechanical manner, ignoring his bail status.

“The remand of the CCL, by three distinct orders passed by the Board is absolutely illegal as the impugned order, are afflicted with vice of lack of jurisdiction and further orders of remand being passed by the Board, in an absolutely mechanical manner, without considering the most significant and pivotal fact that the CCL continue to be on bail,” the court held.

The court underscored that the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act of 2015 is designed to ensure that children who come into conflict with the law are dealt with separately from adults. Despite the tragic nature of the accident and the prosecution's demand to try the minor as an adult for a "heinous offence," the court emphasised its obligation to follow the legislative scheme, which aims to mobilize all resources, including those of family and community, to promote the well-being and development of children and to provide an inclusive and enabling environment to reduce their vulnerabilities. Consequently, the court permitted the minor to benefit from the special legislation.

The court clarified that “the rehabilitation and reintegration of the child in the Society is a primary object of the Act of 2015,” directing that if the minor is undergoing therapy with a psychologist or a de-addiction center, these sessions shall continue at the scheduled times, but the minor will remain at home or in another safe place while on bail. The conditions imposed by the order dated May 19, 2024, will continue to govern him.

Additionally, the court directed that the minor shall remain under the supervision of the petitioner, his paternal aunt, who is to ensure compliance with the necessary directions issued by the Board to assist in his rehabilitation.

 

Cause Title: Pooja Gagan Jain  vs. State of Maharashtra [WP-2372-2024]