Indians call out Judiciary after Pune teen behind the fatal Porsche accident gets bail (Photo Credits: X)
Social media outrage after teenager responsible for Pune Porsche accident granted bail.
On Tuesday, the Bombay High Court ordered the release of the minor accused in the infamous Pune Porsche crash case and approved a habeas corpus plea to annul remand orders that had sent him to an observation home. The incident, which occurred on May 19, involved a 17-year-old boy who caused a fatal accident during a late-night joyride in a Porsche, tragically claiming the lives of two 24-year-old engineers and igniting widespread outrage across the nation.
In delivering their verdict, Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande emphasised the importance of adhering to the Juvenile Justice Act. “We are bound by law, the aims and objectives of the Juvenile Justice Act, and must treat him as any child in conflict with law separately from an adult, despite the seriousness of the crime,” they stated.
The court deemed the Juvenile Justice Board’s order to remand the teenager to an observation home as illegal and beyond its jurisdiction. It highlighted that the boy is undergoing rehabilitation, which includes continued psychological sessions, reinforcing that rehabilitation remains the “primary objective.” “The CCL (child in conflict with the law) is under 18. His age needs to be considered,” the court asserted.
Naturally, this ruling fueled social media outrage. “Faith in money restored,” one commenter sarcastically remarked. Another echoed, “Well I wasn’t even expecting anything other than this. All hail Indian Judiciary!” A third voice added, “Indian Courts give you a reason to work hard and earn money every time there is a trial of any rich accused.” Finally, a fourth summed up the general sentiment: “The justice system is not the same for everyone. Disappointed.”
The ruling followed a habeas corpus petition filed by the boy’s aunt, who sought his release from the government observation home. With his parents and grandfather arrested for attempting a cover-up, the teen will now be under his aunt’s care. Prashant Patil, the lawyer representing the boy’s aunt, pointed out the clarity of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act: a child in conflict with the law cannot be detained. “Our case was simple. Based purely on law, a child in conflict with law cannot be detained in the manner in which he was detained in this case,” Patil explained.
