Pune Porsche case: Bombay High Court orders release of accused juvenile from observation home

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted bail to the juvenile accused in the Pune car accident case, ordering his release into the care of his paternal aunt.

The court also mandated that the minor continue sessions with a psychologist.The paternal aunt had contested the juvenile’s detention in an observation home, describing it as “unlawful and arbitrary”. She approached the High Court alleging improper handling of the case.

Also Read:Pune Porsche crash: Police file final report seeking trial of minor accused as adult

Last week, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande remarked that placing the minor in an observation home after granting bail undermines the purpose of bail, considering the trauma experienced by both the juvenile and the victims’ families.

The incident took place in Pune, where a speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by an intoxicated juvenile, resulted in the deaths of two IT professionals on May 19. This case has garnered national attention following the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to grant bail with lenient conditions, such as writing a 300-word essay on road safety.

Also Read:Pune Porsche crash: Pune Sessions Court grants bail to minor’s father

Earlier, a Pune sessions court granted bail to the juvenile’s father, who faces multiple charges related to the incident. Despite bail being granted, he remains in custody due to allegations including tampering with blood samples and coercing his driver to falsely confess to the accident. Bail was also granted to five others implicated, including bar owners and managers accused of serving alcohol to underage individuals.

The legal proceedings have uncovered several allegations, ranging from the accident itself to the conduct of the juvenile’s father and the implicated bars. These charges include permitting a minor to drive without a valid license and serving alcohol to underage persons. The father is charged under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for cruelty to a child, while bar staff face charges under Section 77 for supplying intoxicants to a minor.

Advocate Prashant Patil, representing the juvenile’s father, confirmed the bail decision, arguing that Section 75 of the JJ Act is non-cognizable and does not necessitate arrest.