The Bombay High Court has addressed the case of a Pune teen who caused the death of two people while driving his father’s Rs 2.5 crore electric Porsche supercar under the influence of alcohol.
The court observed that while the teen was likely in “shock,” affecting his mental faculties, it also acknowledged the ongoing trauma faced by the families of the victims, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Kosta.
The court heard a plea from the boy’s aunt, seeking his immediate release on the grounds that his arrest was “arbitrary and illegal.” The police, accused of shielding the teen due to his influential family background, have faced criticism for “abuse of process and blatant disregard for the rule of law.” Justice Bharati Harish Dangre reserved her order for Tuesday.
The teen accused in the Pune Porsche accident initially received bail within 15 hours of his arrest, under conditions including writing a 300-word essay on road safety.
This bail order led to public outrage and was subsequently amended, leading to the teen being sent to a juvenile remand home. His parents and grandfather were also arrested on charges of bribery and faking blood tests.
The teen’s paternal aunt filed a habeas corpus plea, arguing that the Juvenile Board’s remand order violated applicable laws. Senior Advocate Aabad Poonda, representing the aunt, argued that under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, a minor granted bail cannot be sent to an observation home until the bail is revoked.
Also Read: Lapses in way Juvenile Justice Board handled Pune Porsche crash case: Committee
Poonda pointed out that the boy’s bail was amended, not canceled, and highlighted Section 39, which restricts sending a minor to an observation home unless bail is refused.
The prosecution, represented by Advocate Hiten Venegavkar, countered that the modification of the bail order was due to the teen being under the influence of alcohol and the authorities’ initial failure to report the incident accurately.
Venegavkar argued that the Juvenile Board’s amendment was justified under the circumstances and labeled the petitioner’s argument as “absurd.”
The court questioned if the boy could leave the observation home if a “fit” family member took custody, to which the prosecution agreed, provided an application was made. The petitioner argued that other family members could assume custody, as the teen’s parents and grandfather are all currently in custody.
Meanwhile, a committee investigating the Juvenile Board’s handling of the case found lapses, particularly in the actions of its sole non-judicial member, Dr L N Danwade, who granted the initial bail. The committee’s 100-page report highlighted several issues, including the handling of the blood report.
The case remains under scrutiny as the court deliberates on the legal and procedural aspects of the teen’s detention and the broader implications for juvenile justice and accountability.
