Minor Released In Pune Car Accident Case

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed to immediate release of the 17-year-old boy from the observation home allegedly involved in the Pune car accident. The Juvenile was under observation at home at the Juvenile Justice Board for 36 days after the incident.

The court deemed the orders remanding him to an observation home as illegal and emphasised that the law regarding juveniles must be fully implemented and stated that justice must be prioritised above all else,

The division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande of Bombay High Court emphasised that justice must be realised regardless of consequences. The court made it clear that it was not swayed by the uproar surrounding the tragic accident that resulted in the loss of two innocent lives.

The High Court criticized the Juvenile Justice Board's remand orders as "illegal" and passed without jurisdiction.

The court also reprimanded the police for their handling of the situation, noting that law enforcement agencies had succumbed to public pressure.

The court order stated, "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 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 and as Martin Luther King, has rightly observed, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

"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," the HC added.

The court emphasized that regardless of the seriousness of the crime, the accused is still a child under the Juvenile Justice Act and must be treated as such. The Act aims at rehabilitation and social integration of juvenile offenders, and confinement in an observation home is only permissible when bail has not been granted.

HC in its order stated, "For the aforesaid reason, we issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the release of the CCL from the Observation Home where he is detained, despite being released on bail by a validly passed order by the Board on 19/5/2024 forthwith. We also quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22/5/2024 and the subsequent orders dated 5/6/2024 and the order dated 12/6/2024, which have authorized the continuation of the CCL in the Observation Home which, according to us, is illegal, as the orders being without jurisdiction conferred on the Board."

The court also added, "At this stage, we must, however, clarify that since the rehabilitation and reintegration of the child in the Society is a primary object of the Act of 2015 and because of the orders passed being in the Observation Home, if the CCL is referred to a Psychologist or undergoing therapies with the de- addiction centre, the same shall be continued with the CCL participating in these sessions on the given time and date, though he shall continue to remain in his home or any safe place, being on bail and the conditions imposed upon him by the order dated 19/5/2024 shall continue to govern him."

"In addition, we also direct that the CCL shall continue to be under the supervision of the petitioner, his paternal aunt, who shall ensure the compliance of the necessary direction issued by the Board to assist him to be rehabilitated," it stated.

On June 21, the Pune district court granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, the father of the accused teenager in the primary case where he was booked under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. But, his 77-year-old grandfather is still in judicial custody for allegedly forcing the driver to take responsibility for the crime on behalf of his grandson.

(ANI)