Introduction:

On June 14, 2024, the Bombay High Court heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Pooja Gagan Jain, seeking the release of her nephew, a minor, who is detained in an observation home following a fatal car accident in Pune. The accident, which occurred on May 19, 2024, involved a Porsche driven by the minor, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The petitioner argued that the minor’s detention was unlawful and arbitrary, and sought his immediate release.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petition, represented by senior advocate Abad Ponda, contended that the juvenile was unlawfully taken from his grandfather’s custody and placed in an observation home without a proper review of the earlier order granting bail. The petitioner argued that there was no application moved by the investigating agency under Section 439(2) of the CrPC on May 22, 2024, and the subsequent detention orders lacked legal basis. It was claimed that the Juvenile Justice Board’s (JJB) decision was in violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, which aims to prevent juveniles from becoming hardened criminals.

The petition also highlighted that the media and public sentiment had influenced the judicial process against the minor. The plea argued that the special judge was swayed by media reports, and the intervention of the High Court was essential to protect the legal process. The petitioner sought the minor’s temporary release, arguing that the family had already suffered due to a media-led hate campaign.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The state of Maharashtra, represented by the investigating agency, maintained that the detention of the minor was lawful and necessary due to the severity of the charges. The minor was initially charged with rash and negligent driving, endangering life, and causing death by negligence under various sections of the IPC, along with provisions of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Act. The state argued that the JJB’s decision was based on the need to ensure that the minor did not pose a further risk to society and to ensure proper legal proceedings were followed.

The state also contended that the minor’s release could impede the ongoing investigation, considering the involvement of his family members in related cases. The respondents maintained that the actions taken were within the bounds of the law and necessary given the circumstances of the case.

Court’s Judgement:

The division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, after hearing the arguments, declined to grant urgent interim relief for the minor. The court noted that the minor had been in the observation home since May 21, 2024, and there was no urgent need for an immediate order. The matter was posted for a further hearing on June 20, 2024.

The court allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to include the JJB’s June 13, 2024, order extending the minor’s detention. While the immediate relief was not granted, the court acknowledged the arguments presented and scheduled a detailed hearing to address the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the legality of the minor’s detention.