Pune Porsche Accident | Remand Of Minor To Observation Home Nullified Effect Of Bail: Bombay HC Reserves Orders On Plea For Minor's Release

The Bombay High Court on Friday 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 remarked that the remand and its subsequent extension “completely nullified the effect of bail.”

The bench questioned the source of power to remand a juvenile to an observation home once bail has already been granted. “In the statute it is said that he will be under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of a fit person. Institution is nowhere here. The statute never intended to send him to an institution on bail. Because he is a free man”, the court observed.

The court observed that the minor could not attend court order counselling sessions due to concerns of mob lynching.

"Those who met with the accident and lost their lives, of course their families are in trauma. But the child is also in trauma. Give him some time…The mother was scared.”

A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande reserved for order 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 scheduled the case for order on June 25, 2024.

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 till June 5, 2024. On June 5, 2024, his remand was extended for another 14 days. His parents and grandfather are also in custody in related cases.

Courtroom Exchange

During the hearing today, Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar raised preliminary objections against the habeas corpus petition, asserting that an alternative remedy is available. He argued that a habeas corpus petition challenging a remand must be based on the incompetence of the judge or the mechanical passing of the order, neither of which were mentioned in the petition.

The court noted that the prosecution had not filed any application to cancel the bail granted to the minor and stated that it would not deny relief on the grounds of maintainability.

“Prima facie we have made up our minds that in such a contingency if we do not entertain either writ of certiorari or habeas corpus we will be failing the citizens of this country. So you better argue on the merits…Definitely we will not deny relief on the ground that we cannot entertain, our hands are tied etc,” the bench clarified that it will consider the preliminary objections if the prosecution satisfies the court on the merits of their case.

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. He explained that under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail must be granted to juveniles, and only limited amendments to the bail order are permissible, such as changing the person under whose care the juvenile is released.

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.

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.

The court questioned whether the minor was free to leave the observation home. “When he was released on bail, he would have stayed with his parents' home. Now are you allowing him to travel home during these 14 days? He is a free man…We could have understood if he was free to travel under the supervision of probation officer. But you have said he can meet his parents for only one hour. Is this not confinement?”

Venegavkar told the court that the minor could leave if a fit person came to take him, but to date, no one has approached the authorities. To this, the bench noted that the parents had not been declared unfit. “So you change his custody and expect him to apply? When did you declare that the parents are unfit?”

The bench did not entertain Venegavkar's contention that the parents were under arrest. “Is it on record that the parents and grandfather are not fit? Who can be the fit persons if not parents? It is not your case that subsequently, they have rendered unfit. And we really expect the board to consider the situation at that time immediately when the child was produced. It was open to the board to determine that there is no fit person. We will not go into this now.”

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. He highlighted that the minor filed an application claiming to be depressed. However, the court pointed out that the board has directed the minor to go to a psychiatrist, psychologist, rehabilitation centre, etc. “At the first instance, there was enough care taken for him,” the bench said.

Venegavkar read out the remand order, noting that the minor did not attend sessions with the psychiatrist due to his mother's concerns over mob lynching. He said that the remand order indirectly stated that the parents were not fit. Proper parenting, danger to his life, and psychological situation will have to be considered, he said.

The bench remarked that the minor was under trauma, and couldn't come because his mother was scared about mob lynching, not because the parents were unfit to care for him.

The bench highlighted that the prosecution opposed bail before the JJB on the ground of tampering with evidence. Venegavkar said that manipulation had occurred, asserting that the bail order could not be defended as it was granted based on tampered documents.

“On that day, unfortunately our people, who are in the system, have created records which gave a false impression to the board. The medical report did not show that there was alcohol in his blood,” Venegavkar said, stating that all this information was given to the JJB when the remand was granted.

“We have taken our officers to task also. We have to send a message to the society that you cannot get away by just writing a 300-word essay,” Venegavkar submitted.

Ponda, in his rebuttal, argued that any fault with the bail order should be challenged in a superior court, not reviewed by the same court. He emphasized that the minor's liberty has been violated in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Case Title – Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra