Pune teen also in trauma, give him time: Bombay High Court in Porsche crash case (2024)

The Bombay High Court said on Friday that the teen accused in the Pune Porsche accident was also in trauma, and he should be given some time.

The teen was allegedly driving the Porsche car at very high speed in an intoxicated state on May 19, when the car crashed into a bike, killing two software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta.

He was granted bail the same day by the Juvenile Justice Board and ordered to be put under the care and supervision of his parents and grandfather under one of the conditions that a 300-word essay needed to be written on road safety.

The police later filed an application before the board, seeking amendment of the bail order. On May 22, the board ordered the boy to be taken into custody and remanded him to an observation home.

The bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said this while pointing to the approach of the Pune police in the way the minor was first granted bail and then suddenly, amidst mounting public pressure, was put in an observation home.

"Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma but the child (juvenile) was also in trauma, give him some time," the Bombay High Court said, while grilling the prosecution during hearing of a plea filed by the aunt of the teen accused in the Porsche Pune crash.

The teen's aunt had filed the plea, seeking his release from the observation home.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the police under what provision of law, the order granting bail to the juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche accident case was amended and how he had been kept in confinement.

Advocate Aabad Ponda representing the juvenile's aunt, submitted that the police had not challenged the bail order or sought its cancellation but had gone for modification of it, which is illegal.

Ponda further that the boy's fundamental rights were violated.

"A free citizen's personal liberty has been trampled upon. Can a child be taken in custody when he has been granted bail and the bail order is in force?" Ponda said. He added that there was no provision under law where such a review of a bail order can be sought and passed.

The bench noted that the bail order was amended after the Pune police moved the application and the boy was taken into custody and has been remanded to an observation home, thrice since then.

"What type of remand is this? Where is the power to remand? What kind of procedure is this where a person has been granted bail and then a remand is passed taking him in custody," the court asked. The bench added that the boy was taken away from the care and supervision of his family members and sent to an observation home, "which is not the aim of the statute".

"He is a person who has been granted bail, but now he has been confined to an observation home. Is this not confinement? We would like to know your source of power," the bench asked chief Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, representing the Pune police. The bench questioned why the police did not move an application for cancellation of the bail.

Venegaonkar submitted that the remand orders passed by the board were all valid and there has only been a change in guardianship: instead of the parents, he is now under a probation officer.

Venegaonkar submitted that on May 19, the bail order of the board, "rightly or wrongly" passed but since then much has happened and there was tampering of evidence.

"Action has been taken against the errant officers and doctors. We have taken them to task. A strong message to society has to be sent that you cannot walk out by just writing a 300-word essay. The duty of the state will have to be maintained," Venegaonkar said.

The teenager is currently in an observation home till June 25. The bench too reserved its order on the aunt's plea and said the order would be passed on June 25.