The Bombay High Court is reviewing the Pune Porsche Case in which a teenager who, while driving his father's Rs 2.5 crore Porsche, killed two people. The court noted that the teen was likely in "shock" after the accident, which could have affected his mental state. The court also asked if it meant confinement when the juvenile was granted bail but was taken back in custody and kept in an observation home. The court further recognised the ongoing trauma faced by the families of the victims, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Kosta. 


"Two people have lost their lives. There was trauma, but the child was also in trauma," the court said. 


The court was hearing a plea from the minor's aunt, seeking release, claiming his arrest after the high-speed collision was arbitrary and illegal. The police were criticised for allegedly "shielding" the boy, who is the son of a prominent city builder, and for abusing their authority. 


Justice Bharati Harish Dangre of the single-judge bench has reserved the order for Tuesday. 


The teen was initially granted bail within 15 hours of his arrest, with conditions including writing a 300-word essay on road safety. This bail order caused public outrage, leading the police to seek its amendment. 


Consequently, the bail order was modified, and the teen, along with his parents and grandfather who faced charges of bribery and falsifying blood tests, was sent to a juvenile remand home. 


Last week, the teen's aunt filed a habeas corpus plea, arguing that the remand order violated applicable laws. 


Arguments Presented By Petitioner


In the hearing, the petitioner's advocate, Senior Advocate Aabad Poonda, argued that the amendment of the bail order did not legally "justify" sending the teen to an observation home. According to Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a minor on bail cannot be sent to such a home unless the bail is revoked.


"The basic rule is to grant bail to juveniles under the JJ Act. But if you want to put someone in jail, first you cancel the bail. When the police moved the application under Section 104, the Juvenile Board only amended the earlier order. Only when bail is refused can the minor be sent to observation home," Poonda said, as per NDTV. 


Poonda noted Section 39 of the JJ Act, stating that a minor can only be placed in an observation home if bail is refused. He also questioned the arrest of the grandfather, the initial custodian, suggesting that other family members could take custody of the teen. 


"One cannot send a person to an observation home when he is on bail. He was sent for 14 days (custody later extended) and hence his liberty has been curtailed," he stated, as reported by NDTV.


"Even if it is a heinous offense. I can't be kept behind bars without cancelling my bail," Poonda added. 


Prosecution's Counterarguments 


Advocate Hiten Venegavkar, representing the prosecution, argued that the circumstances, including the teen being under the influence of alcohol, justified the Juvenile Board's decision to amend the bail order. He pointed out that initial failures by the police to report the deaths and conduct timely blood tests influenced the original bail decision. 


Venegavkar described the petitioner's argument as "absurd," stating that the minor was placed in an observation home under a probation officer's supervision following an amendment in Section 104. 


"It is unfortunate our own people didn't present facts before the Juvenile Board on May 19. He was shown 'fit' and 'not under the influence of alcohol'. The circumstances presented that day led to pass the order being passed...", Venegavkar said, adding that the bail should never have been granted. 


The court inquired if the teen could be released if a suitable family member took custody. The prosecution affirmed this but noted that no application had been made by any fit family to the Juvenile Board for custody. 


A committee investigating the Juvenile Board's handling of the case found lapses, particularly by Dr Danwade, the non-judicial member who granted the teen bail. The committee's 100-page report to the Social Justice Department highlighted several issues, including discrepancies in the blood report not sourced from the police. 


The court's decision on the matter is pending, with a reserved order expected soon.