The Bombay High Court on June 21 queried if it amounted to confinement when the juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche case was granted bail but was taken back in custody and kept in an observation home.
The division bench of Justices Bharti Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande questioned the approach of the Pune Police on the manner the minor was granted bail first but then put in an observation home following public outcry.
Questioning the powers of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) that could have sent the minor to an observation home when he was already released on bail, the bench said, “In the statute, it is said that he will be under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of a fit person. Institution is nowhere here. The statute never intended to send him to an institution on bail. Because he is a free man. What type of remand is this? Where is the power to remand? What kind of procedure is this where a person has been granted bail and then a remand is passed taking him into custody?”
Also read | Pune Porsche crash: Police submit final report to Juvenile Justice Board
The court said that both sides have gone through trauma. “Those who met with the accident and lost their lives, of course their families are in trauma. But the child is also in trauma. Give him some time,” the court said.
Raising objections against the habeas corpus petition filed by the minor’s aunt who is seeking the accused’s release from the observation home, public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar argued that a habeas corpus petition challenging a remand must be based on the incompetence of the judge or the mechanical passing of the order, neither of which were mentioned in the petition. To this, the court said, “Prima facie we have made up our minds that in such a contingency if we do not entertain either writ of certiorari or habeas corpus we will be failing the citizens of this country.”
Mr. Venegavkar argued that since the grandfather and parents were in custody, the minor had to be in an observation home under the supervision of a probation officer. To this the court asked, “When he was released on bail, he would have stayed at his parents’ home. Now are you allowing him to travel home during these 14 days? He is a free man. We could have understood if he was free to travel under the supervision of a probation officer. But you have said he can meet his parents for only one hour. Is this not confinement?”
Mr. Venegavkar informed the court that there was no obligation for the minor to leave unless someone physically ‘fit’ comes to take him but till date, no one approached the authorities. He also stressed that sending him to the observation home was important for the minor’s safety and well-being. “Action has been taken against the errant officers and doctors. A strong message to society must be sent that you cannot walk out by writing a 300-word essay. The duty of the state will have to be maintained,” he said.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Aabad Ponda argued that once a juvenile is granted bail, in no circumstances, they can be placed in an observation home. Under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, bail must be granted to juveniles, and only limited amendments to the bail order are permissible, such as changing the person under whose care the juvenile is released. “The minor was under ‘illegal detention’... A free citizen’s personal liberty has been trampled upon. Can a child be taken into custody when he has been granted bail and the bail order is in force?” Mr. Ponda argued.
Published - June 21, 2024 04:30 pm IST
