Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court

Porsche Car Accident  Car | Bombay High Court Rules Detention of Juvenile in Observation Home Post-Bail as Unlawful

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has set aside the detention of a juvenile in an observation home despite being granted bail. The court found the Juvenile Justice Board’s actions to be beyond its jurisdiction, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Facts of the Case:

In the early hours of May 19, 2024, a tragic car accident in Pune led to the deaths of two young individuals. The accident was caused by a Porsche driven by a 17-year-old (hereafter referred to as the Child in Conflict with Law or CCL), who was found to be under the influence of alcohol. The CCL was initially released on bail by the Juvenile Justice Board, Pune, but was later detained in an observation home under an amended order citing public safety and rehabilitation needs.

Court Observations and Views:

Credibility of Juvenile Justice Act Provisions:

The bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande highlighted the misuse of Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act by the Juvenile Justice Board. The court observed, “Section 104 permits amendment of orders relating to the institution to which a child is sent or under whose supervision the child is placed. It does not permit remanding a child to an observation home post-bail without cancellation of bail.”

Legal Reasoning:

The court extensively discussed the legal principles governing the detention and rehabilitation of juveniles. It reiterated that once bail is granted, the child should not be detained unless the bail is explicitly revoked. “The remand of the CCL by the Board is absolutely illegal as the impugned orders are afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction and passed in an absolutely mechanical manner,” the court stated.

Witness Testimonies and Public Pressure:

Addressing the public outcry and subsequent pressure on law enforcement, the court noted, “The entire situation has been handled in a haphazard manner, influenced by public outrage rather than adhering to the rule of law. This is a classic case of the law enforcing agency succumbing to public pressure, questioning the upbringing of the child from an affluent family.”

Quotes from the Judgment:

Justice Bharati Dangre remarked, “Liberty secured through a process of law must be administered keeping in mind the interest of the accused and the collective interest of the community, so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution.”

Conclusion:

The court’s ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory framework provided by the Juvenile Justice Act. By setting aside the orders detaining the CCL in an observation home, the judgment reinforces the principle that justice must prevail, irrespective of public sentiment. The court directed the immediate release of the CCL and emphasized the continuation of his rehabilitation under proper supervision while being free on bail.

Impact and Implications:

This landmark judgment is expected to have significant implications for the handling of juvenile justice cases in India. It reinforces the legal protections afforded to juveniles and clarifies the limitations of judicial powers under the Juvenile Justice Act. The ruling is a reminder that public pressure should not dictate judicial decisions, and adherence to the rule of law is paramount in ensuring justice.

 

Date of Decision: June 25, 2024

Xxx vs State of Maharashtra

Similar News