Pune Porsche Accident | 'All Sympathies For Victims But Court Is Bound To Implement Law': Bombay HC While Releasing Minor Accused

The Bombay High Court, while ordering the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche car accident case, criticised the “haphazard manner” in which the prosecution and law enforcement agencies handled the situation, influenced by public outcry. The Court said:

“We can only express our dismay and perturbation by describing the whole approach as an unfortunate incident and hope and trust that the future course of action to be chartered, shall be in accordance with existing provisions of law, avoiding any haste. However, at this stage, while pronouncing upon the reliefs sought before us, in the Writ Petition we deem it necessary to discharge our solemn obligation, by adherence to the Rule of Law and we feel bound by it, though the respondents, the law enforcing agencies have succumbed to the public pressure, but we are of the firm opinion that the Rule of law must prevail in every situation, howsoever catastrophic or calamitous the situation may be.”

Calling the accident a “ghastly” incident, a division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, quoting Martin Luther King: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

The court added, “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. Law is an objective thing and there it stands, irrespective of whether it entails any hardship.”

The court said that the minor has to be treated like any other child in conflict with the law. It added:

“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, he must receive the same treatment, which every other child in conflict with law is entitled to receive, as the purpose of the Act of 2015 is to ensure that children who come in conflict with law are dealt with separately and not like adults.”

Facts

In the early hours of May 19, 2024, a Porsche car driven by a minor aged 17 years and 8 months, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol and driving at high speed, crashed with a motorcycle carrying two riders, killing them on the spot.

An FIR was registered against the minor for offences under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 of the IPC, and Sections 184, 190, and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Eyewitnesses recorded statements attributing the accident to the minor's rash and negligent driving.

As a result, the court noted, the minor faced public outrage and was manhandled before being apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune. The minor got bail on the same day by the Juvenile Justice Board.

However, on May 21, 2024, the prosecution filed an application under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, after the insertion of Section 304 of the IPC in the FIR. This application highlighted that the minor was not licensed to drive, was heavily intoxicated, and drove recklessly, resulting in the fatalities. The application sought to review the earlier bail order based on new evidence, including CCTV footage showing the CCL consuming alcohol and smoking before the incident.

On May 22, 2024, JJB issued an amended order under Section 104 of the Act, not intending to revoke the bail but to place the minor in an Observation Home for rehabilitation. The order cited discrepancies in the investigation reports and the need for the minor's psychological treatment and safety, considering public anger and the potential for mob violence.

Subsequent applications by the investigating officer led to extensions of the minor's stay in the Observation Home until June 25, 2024.

The paternal aunt of the minor approached the high court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release, arguing that once bail was granted, he could not have been placed in an Observation Home under the guise of rehabilitation.

Court's Verdict

The court noted that the Act is designed to protect children alleged or found to be in conflict with the law and children in need of care and protection.

Section 12 specifies conditions for granting bail to children alleged to be in conflict with the law, emphasizing that bail should be granted unless it poses a risk to the child or public. If bail is denied, the child must be placed in an observation home or a place of safety.

The court noted that Section 104 of the Act, which allows the Board to amend its orders regarding the institution or person under whose care a child is placed, cannot be used to deprive a child of liberty if he is on bail. The Board's power under Section 104 is limited to changing the institution or person responsible for the child's care, not to re-detain a child already granted bail, the court stated.

The court criticized the JJB's order dated May 21, 2024, which confined the child to an observation home despite being on bail. It also stated that further orders extending the minor's detention were also without jurisdiction and passed in a mechanical manner, ignoring the fact that he was already a free individual on bail.

“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 and there is no cancellation or revocation of the order, enlarging him on bail”, the court held.

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda a/w Advocates Prashant Patil, Swapnil Ambure, Pranav Patil, Avantika Sharma, Nida Khan, Swati Pandey, Vinayak Patil, Anant Charkhe, Vishal Nevshe and R.B. Ade represented the Petitioner.

Public Prosecutor Hiten Vanegavkar, a/w APP MM Deshmukh represented the State.

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 2372 of 2024

Case title – XYZ v. State of Maharashtra