
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court has ordered the immediate release of the 17-year-old boy involved in the fatal Porsche accident in Pune. The accident, which occurred on May 19, resulted in the tragic deaths of engineers Ashwini Kostha and Aneesh Awadhiya, sparking widespread outrage across the nation.
The High Court’s decision came in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by the boy’s aunt, challenging his detention in a government observation home. Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande emphasized the application of the Juvenile Justice Act in handling cases involving minors in conflict with the law.
The court observed that despite the severity of the incident, the law mandates separate treatment for juveniles, focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The boy, who was initially remanded to an observation home by the Juvenile Justice Board, will now be under the care of his aunt.
Prashant Patil, the lawyer representing the boy’s aunt, highlighted the legal grounds for the release, citing Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which prohibits the detention of children in conflict with the law. Patil stressed that the primary objective should be the rehabilitation of the juvenile offender.
The accident, which occurred when the speeding Porsche driven by the teenager collided with a bike, led to the immediate deaths of Kostha and Awadhiya. Eyewitnesses reported the teenager’s alleged intoxication at the time of the incident, prompting public outcry and demands for accountability.
The initial bail conditions set by the Juvenile Justice Board had sparked controversy, with critics deeming them inadequate. Subsequent revelations during the police investigation, including attempts to manipulate evidence and cover up the incident, led to the arrest of the boy’s parents and grandfather.
The High Court’s ruling underscores the complexities of juvenile justice and the need for a balanced approach that prioritizes rehabilitation while addressing the gravity of the crime and its consequences.
The case has ignited debates on legal procedures, remand powers, and the role of the Juvenile Justice Board in handling such sensitive matters. The court’s scrutiny of the detention and subsequent modifications in the boy’s bail conditions reflects a broader discourse on accountability and justice in cases involving minors.
Sources By Agencies