Pune: The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Friday queried if it amounted to confinement when the juvenile accused within the Pune Porsche case was granted bail however was taken again in custody and stored in an commentary residence.
A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande stated there was no denying that the accident was unlucky.
“Two folks have misplaced their lives. There was trauma however the little one (juvenile) was additionally in trauma,” the courtroom stated.
The bench additionally questioned the police beneath what provision of legislation, the order granting bail to the minor accused within the Porsche accident case was amended and the way he has been stored in “confinement”.
Within the early hours of Could 19, the juvenile was allegedly driving a Porsche automotive at very excessive pace in an intoxicated state when the automobile crashed into a motorcycle, killing two software program engineers – Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta – in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar.
The 17-year-old was granted bail the identical day by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which ordered that he be stored beneath the care and supervision of his mother and father and grandfather. He was additionally requested to put in writing a 300-word essay on highway security.
Amid a nationwide uproar over the fast bail, the police appealed to the JJB to amend the bail order. On Could 22, the board ordered the boy to be taken into custody and remanded him to an commentary residence.
Final week, {the teenager}’s paternal aunt filed a habeas corpus (produce individual) petition claiming that he was illegally detained and sought his rapid launch.
The bench, whereas listening to the arguments within the plea on Friday, famous that until date, the police haven’t filed any software earlier than a better courtroom looking for cancellation of the bail order handed by the JJB.
As an alternative, an software was filed looking for modification of the bail order, HC stated, including that based mostly on this software, the bail order was amended, the boy was taken in custody and remanded to an commentary residence.
“What sort of remand is that this? What’s the energy to remand? What sort of process is that this the place an individual has been granted bail after which a remand is handed taking him in custody,” the courtroom stated.
The bench added that the minor was taken away from the care and supervision of his relations and despatched to an commentary residence.
“He’s an individual who has been granted bail, however now he has been confined to an commentary residence. Is that this not confinement? We wish to know your supply of energy,” HC stated.
The bench stated it additionally anticipated the Juvenile Justice Board to be accountable.
The courtroom questioned why the police didn’t transfer an software for cancellation of the bail.
The courtroom reserved its order on the plea and stated it will be handed on Tuesday (June 25).
Public prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar submitted that the remand orders handed by the board have been all legitimate and therefore no interference was required.
On Could 19, Venegaonkar stated, the JJB bail order was “rightly or wrongly” handed, and in addition the blood samples of the juvenile have been tampered with.
“Motion has been taken in opposition to the errant officers and medical doctors. Now we have to ship a powerful message to society. Simply writing a 300-word essay just isn’t sufficient,” Venegaonkar stated.
Senior counsel Aabad Ponda argued that the boy’s basic rights have been violated.
“A free citizen’s private liberty has been trampled upon. Can a baby be taken in custody when he has been granted bail and the bail order is in pressure,” Ponda stated.
He added that there was no provision beneath the legislation the place such a evaluation of a bail order might be sought and handed.
“You can not flip again the clock. Had bail been refused, CCL may have been despatched to an commentary residence. However having been granted bail how can he be despatched again to an commentary residence,” Ponda stated.
The senior counsel stated such issues should not even completed in critical offences beneath the stringent Maharashtra Management of Organised Crime Act and Terrorist and Disruptive Actions (Prevention) Act. How the police can do that in a juvenile’s case, he requested.
The boy’s aunt within the plea claimed that due to the general public uproar coupled with “political agenda”, the police deviated from the best course of investigation in regards to the minor thus defeating the whole goal of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Safety of Youngsters) Act.
{The teenager} is at present in an commentary residence until June 25.
