He was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board the same day.
The court called it a “classic case” of how law enforcement as well as law implementing agencies react to a public outburst.
The court asserted that rehabilitation and social integration with an individual care plan through family-based care is the hallmark of the juvenile justice legislation.
It then held that the order passed by the Board was “illegal and beyond the powers conferred under the statute”.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)Also read: Weeks after Pune Porsche case, Delhi lawyer rams his Audi into 2 rickshaw pullers, 1 dies
In the early hours of 19 May, builder Vishal Agarwal’s 17-year-old son allegedly drove his father’s Porsche while intoxicated and collided with a motorcycle, killing both riders. An FIR was registered against him under IPC sections 304A (causing death by negligence), 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way), 337 (causing hurt by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 427 (committing mischief and thereby causing loss or damage to the amount of Rs 50), along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. He was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board the same day.
A bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande Tuesday ordered the 17-year-old’s release from an observation home in Pune where he was detained under orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, despite the fact that the board had granted him bail on 19 May.
New Delhi: While the court has sympathies for the victims and their families, it has to implement the law as it stands, the Bombay High Court observed as it ordered the release of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche accident case.
The petition in the high court now challenged the orders passed by the Pune Juvenile Justice Board, sending the minor to an observation home on 22 May, and subsequent orders extending his stay there.
In its judgment, the high court spoke of the “haphazard manner in which the entire prosecution agency approached the issue, being rattled by the public outcry”. The court called it a “classic case” of how law enforcement as well as law implementing agencies react to a public outburst.
“Though the manner in which the entire situation has been handled by the respondents including the investigation wing, we can only express our dismay and perturbation by describing the whole approach as an unfortunate incident,” it observed.
The court then asserted that even though the law enforcement agencies “succumbed to public pressure”, rule of law must prevail in every situation, however catastrophic or calamitous the situation may be.
Quashing the remand orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board as “illegal”, the high court quoted the Latin phrase, ‘Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum’, which means, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall”.
It then observed, “It is our bounden duty to prioritise 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 (minor) is personally responsible and which has resulted in loss of two innocent lives.”
It further said that the outcry, as a knee-jerk reaction to the accident, resulting in a clarion call to “see the accused’s action and not his age”, will have to be overlooked. It then asserted that “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”.
While ordering his release, the court clarified that if the minor has been referred to a psychologist or undergoing therapy at a de-addiction centre, he shall continue participating in these sessions. It also directed that the minor shall continue to be under the supervision of his paternal aunt, “who shall ensure the compliance of the necessary direction issued by the Board to assist him to be rehabilitated”.
‘Rehabilitation stay’
Aged 17 years and 8 months, the minor was produced before the Pune Juvenile Justice Board under the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 on 19 May and released on bail the same day. He was let off with a directive to write a 300-word essay on road accidents and a referral to an alcohol de-addiction centre.
On 21 May, the prosecution filed an application under Section 104 of the 2015 law, seeking to review the earlier bail order based on new evidence, including CCTV footage purportedly showing the minor consuming alcohol and smoking before the incident. Section 104 allows the Board to amend its own orders regarding the “institution to which a child is to be sent or as to the person under whose care or supervision a child is to be placed under this Act”.
While the prosecution’s application was not for cancellation of bail, this application resulted in an order passed by the Board on 22 May, sending him to the “rehabilitation stay at the observation home Pune” till 5 June. The Board also launched a comprehensive procedure for his rehabilitation, passing several directions referring him to experts and preparing him for a de-addiction programme.
Also read: Pune Porsche case wouldn’t have taken a U-turn for the rich family if not for public outrage
The minor’s family members were allowed to visit him at the observation home, subject to his physical and psychological safety and security, twice in a week between 11 am and 12 pm.
Through a subsequent order, the Board extended his stay at the observation home till 12 June. The latest high court judgment noted that this extension order said that since videos of the incident have spread on social media and the public have seen the minor, he would be safe in the observation home.
Through another order passed on 12 June, his stay was further extended till 25 June.
The minor’s paternal aunt Pooja Jain had now approached the Bombay High Court, demanding his release from the “abjectly unlawful and arbitrary custody and incarceration”.
‘Confining a free child’
Quashing the remand orders, the high court took note of the provisions of the 2015 law, which say that only if a child is denied bail by the board shall they be kept in an observation home or place of safety during the pendency of inquiry.
The court asserted that rehabilitation and social integration with an individual care plan through family-based care is the hallmark of the juvenile justice legislation. It, therefore, asserted that this is usually done by restoring the child to the family or guardian, and this rehabilitation process is undertaken in an observation home only if the child is not released on bail. It further pointed out that an observation home “comes as an alternative mechanism for hosting a child for initiation of the process of rehabilitation and social integration”.
The court asserted that Section 104 is limited to changing the institution or a person under whose care a child is placed, and does not involve depriving the child of their liberty if they are already out on bail. It opined that the Board had “misguided itself” by directing the child back to the observation home, despite having granted him bail earlier.
“The Juvenile Justice Board has, therefore, clearly erred in assuming the power to detain the CCL in Observation Home, contradicting its own earlier order releasing him on bail, by construing its subsequent order, as amendment of the earlier order, which is a grossly erroneous assumption, as there is no question of confining a free child, who is already on bail,” the court observed.
It then held that the order passed by the Board was “illegal and beyond the powers conferred under the statute”.
(Edited by Gitanjali Das)
Also read: Weeks after Pune Porsche case, Delhi lawyer rams his Audi into 2 rickshaw pullers, 1 dies
