The Bombay High Court on Friday sought to know under what provision of law the juvenile accused in Pune’s Porsche fatal accident case remanded to custody after being granted bail. The court asked if it is not confinement where the juvenile was taken back in custody and kept in an observation home.
The court noted there was no denying that the accident was unfortunate. “Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma but the child (juvenile) was also in trauma,” a bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said.
On May 19, a juvenile allegedly crashed his Porsche car into a bike, killing two persons – Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. The juvenile was allegedly intoxicated and driving at a high speed. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) granted him bail on the same day and ordered to be under the care and supervision of his parents and grandfather.
Following an uproar, the police then sought amendment to the bail order by the JJB. On May 22, JJB ordered the boy to be taken into custody and remanded him to an observation home. The boy is currently in an observation home till June 25.
Last week, the boy’s paternal aunt filed a habeas corpus (produce person in court) petition claiming that he was illegally detained and sought his immediate release.
On Friday, the bench noted that till date the police has not filed any application before a higher court seeking cancellation of the bail order passed by the JJB. Instead, an application was filed seeking amendment of the bail order. Based on which the bail order was amended and the boy was taken in custody and has been remanded to an observation home, HC said.
“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 judges remarked.
The judges said that the boy was taken away from the care and supervision of his family members and sent to an observation home. “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 judges added.
Noting that JJB was expected to be responsible, the HC questioned police why the police did not move an application for cancellation of the bail.
The HC will pass the order on the plea on June 25.
Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar submitted that on May 19, the bail order of the board was "rightly or wrongly" passed, and also the blood samples of the juvenile was tampered with. He said action was taken against the errant officers and doctors. “We have to send a strong message to society. Just writing a 300 word essay is not enough,” Venegaonkar added.
Aunt’s counsel Aabad Ponda argued that the boy’s fundamental rights were violated. He added that there was no provision under law where such a review of a bail order can be sought and passed. Such things are not even done in serious offences under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act then how can the police do this in a juvenile's case, Ponda argued.
