Latest news with #JJB
Time of India
6 days ago
- Time of India
Why Pune teen accused of mowing down two techies won't stand trial as adult
Why Pune teen accused of mowing down two techies won't stand trial as adult Sunil Baghel TNN Updated: Jul 17, 2025, 15:38 IST Despite a police plea, the allegedly inebriated teenage driver behind the death of two people in Pune in 2024 will not face trial as an adult. On July 15, the Pune Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ruled that a 17-year old who is accused of mowing down two techies in May 2024 while driving a Porsche Taycan under the influence of alcohol, cannot be tried as an adult. The decision came in response to the Pune Police's decision to alter the charges against the teenager after he was granted bail last year.
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche crash case: After JJB ruling, what next for minor, possible outcomes
THE Juvenile Justice Board in Pune on Tuesday rejected the city police's plea to try the minor accused in the Porsche crash case as an adult. So what course will the proceedings now take? How will the prosecution pursue their case and where does the law stand if the child is found to be in conflict with the law or otherwise? The chronology at the JJB In the early hours of May 19 last year, the then 17-year-old minor was allegedly driving the Porsche Taycan at a high speed while he was intoxicated when the car crashed into a bike killing two software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. He was detained and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) the same afternoon. Police sought his custody in an observation home and requested he be tried as an adult, but the JJB rejected both pleas and granted bail with conditions, including writing an essay, studying traffic norms, and undergoing de-addiction counselling. Amid public outcry, Pune Police challenged the order in district court, which sent the matter back to the JJB. On May 22, the JJB remanded the minor to an observation home until June, with psychological and de-addiction counselling included in his rehabilitation. His initial remand ended June 5 and was extended to June 12. Police then sought another 14-day extension, while the defence requested his release to family. After hearing both sides, the JJB extended the remand to June 25. However, the Bombay High Court, responding to a habeas corpus plea from his aunt, ruled the remand illegal and ordered the minor's release into her care. The minor has turned 18 in the later half of 2024. How will the case proceed now? If after a preliminary assessment, the JJB were to pass an order that there is a need for the minor to be tried as an adult, then the case would be referred to a designated Children's Court. However, now that the JJB has rejected the plea, future proceedings will be held under section 14 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which pertains to 'Inquiry by JJB regarding child in conflict with law', which is similar to the trial. A lawyer who has practiced at the JJB for several years, said, 'This inquiry by the JJB is conducted in ways which are similar to a regular trial. Now the arguments will be held on the charges. Subsequently there will be framing of charges where the minor is asked whether he pleads guilty or nor guilty. Then witnesses are called. The examination-in-chief and cross examination of these witnesses is held.' The lawyer added, 'When the minor is initially produced before the JJB, a Social Investigation Report is prepared by a probation officer, comprising family background of the child and other material circumstances likely to be of assistance to the JJB for making the inquiry. This report along with a report from the counsellors forms a key basis of the order of the JJB, this is where the inquiry is different than a trial.' The three member JJB is headed by a magistrate with at least three years experience and two social workers, of whom at least one is a woman. When contacted, the minor's lawyer, advocate Prashant Patil said, 'In the next hearing of the JJB we expect to hold arguments over the charges. We are expecting an independent and fair proceeding without getting affected by the allegations coming from the media trial and only on the basis of evidence collected by the investigation agency.' Outcomes of the inquiry If the JJB finds that the child is not in conflict with law, order is passed accordingly. The JJB may find the child in conflict with law based on the nature of offence, specific need for supervision or intervention, circumstances as brought out in the social investigation report and past conduct of the child, under section 18 of JJ Act. The JJB can pass the following orders — Allow the child to go home after advice or admonition by following the appropriate inquiry and counselling. — Direct the child to participate in group counselling and similar activities. — Order the child to perform community service under the supervision of an organisation or institution. — Order the child or the parents or the guardian of the child to pay a fine. Direct the child to be released on probation of good conduct and placed under the care of any parent or guardian. — Direct the child to be released on probation into the care of a facility for any period not exceeding three years. — Direct the child to be sent to a special home, for a period not exceeding three years, for providing reformative services and psychiatric support. Will appeal, need for wider debate: Special Prosecutor Special Public Prosecutor advocate Shishir Hiray said, 'We will be filing an appeal against the JJB ruling in the stipulated time period of 30 days. We are thoroughly studying the orders. We are also holding discussions with the investigation agency, senior police officers and the Law and Judiciary department of the government.' Hiray added, 'However this entire case and ongoing legal proceedings are crucial in multiple ways. First, as we have argued time again, that in this case attempts were made to change the entire course of justice delivery by tampering with the evidence. Going a step further, there is a need for a much wider national level debate on what constitutes a heinous crime under the provisions of the JJ Act and the provisions surrounding that aspect.'
Indian Express
16-07-2025
- Indian Express
Porsche car crash: JJB rejects police plea for trying 17 yr old minor driver as an adult
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has today rejected the application by the Pune city police seeking an order that the minor accused in the Porsche car crash be tried as an adult. Two IT engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and his friend Ashwini Koshta, both aged 24 and hailing from Madhya Pradesh, were killed after the speeding Porsche driven by a 17-year-old boy allegedly in an inebriated state hit their motorcycle around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024. Same day, a first information report (FIR) was lodged against the minor car driver at the Yerwada police station. Subsequently, citing sections of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Pune city police filed an application at JJB, seeking an order that the child in conflict with law (CCL) be tried as an adult in this case. Prosecution had argued that CCL (minor car driver) accused committed a 'heinous offence' and was driving the Porsche car after consuming liquor despite knowing its consequences The defence lawyer opposed the application saying the present offence cannot be legally termed as 'heinous. The defence lawyer had also argued that the object of Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act is 'reformative' and not 'punitive'. A senior police officer confirmed that the JJB today passed an order in favour of the CCL. Earlier, when police had detained the minor and produced him before the JJB on May 19, he was granted by the JJB on conditions that he would 'write an essay of 300 words' on 'topic in effect of road accidents and their solutions', assist RTO officers and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days. But, following a public uproar, the minor was sent to an observation home on May 22. Apparently, the police again submitted applications at the JJB on May 21 and May 22, for trying the CCL as an adult. The minor's paternal aunt had then moved a plea before the high court (HC) and sought his release, claiming that as per the JJ Act 2015, it needs to be ensured that any conflict with the law does not result in him turning into a hardened criminal. On June 25, the HC ordered the minor's release and that he be handed over into the care of his paternal aunt. Subsequently, the minor was released from the observation home. Meanwhile, the police investigation had revealed that when the minor driver, who is son of a prominent realtor, was taken to the government-run Sassoon Hospital after the accident for a medical examination, his blood sample was allegedly replaced with his mother's. A police probe also confirmed that blood samples of the two friends of the minor driver, who were in the Porsche at the time of the accident, were also swapped at Sassoon hospital. Police arrested and chargesheeted ten persons including the minor's parents, Dr Ajay Taware, the then head of the Forensic Medicine Department of Sassoon Hospital, Dr Shrihari Halnor, the casualty medical officer at the time, Atul Ghatkamble, a morgue staff and others. They are booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 304, 279, 338, 337, 427, 120 (b), 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 and sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. Special public prosecutor (SPP) Shishir Hiray had argued at the JJB that minor accused had been booked under IPC sections 467 (forgery) and 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), which attract punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for up to ten year. 'So he has committed a 'heinous offence' as per section 2 (33) of JJ Act, which says that offences having punishment of imprisonment for seven years or more are 'heinous', Hiray had argued. Prosecution had submitted that in case of a heinous offence, as per section 15 (1) of JJ Act, the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment of a minor's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the said crime. Prosecution submitted that after the preliminary assessment under section 15 (1), the JJB can, under section 18 (3) of the JJ Act, pass an order for trial of the minor as an adult. SPP Hiray had argued before the JJB the actual driver of the Porsche had asked the minor not to drive the car. 'But still the minor drove the Porsche after consuming liquor and committed the crime. He knew the consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. He was present at the Sassoon hospital when his blood samples were swapped. He knew swapping blood samples was a crime. So he was aware of the consequences of the offence and should be tried as an adult,' Hiray had said. Defence lawyer Prashant Patil submitted before the JJB that the CCL has no prior criminal record and the Porsche crash incident, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgement, not criminal intention. Citing a Supreme Court judgement in Shilpa Mittal versus State of Delhi case, Patil had claimed that the present offence may not legally qualify as 'heinous' and hence section (15) of JJ Act should not be invoked in this case. Patil had also submitted that as per section 2 (12) of JJ Act, any person below the age of 18 years is considered a child. Patil argued the goal of juvenile justice is to 'rehabilitate' and not to punish the minor in the same way as for adults.
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Time of India
Porsche crash: Juvenile Justice Board rejects Pune police's plea to try teenage driver as adult
Pune: The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in the city on Tuesday rejected Pune police's application seeking the 17-year-old's trial as an adult in the Porsche Taycan car crash that claimed the lives of two techies on May 19 last year. The JJB relied on a Supreme Court ruling of Jan 9, 2020, while observing that the offence attributed to the minor in this instance cannot be considered "heinous" within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, to merit his trial as an adult. Pune police commissioner Amitesh Kumar, who was pushing for the teenager's trial as an adult, told TOI: "We will take a call on filing an appeal before a sessions court after we go through the JJB's order in detail." You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune Investigating officer ACP (crime) Ganesh Ingale said, "We expect to get a full text of the JJB's order in due course of time." The teenager, who was released from an observation home after the Bombay high court on June 25, 2024, said that his continuation there was illegal, will face trial relating to the crash before the JJB and not before a sessions court. Two young software engineers were killed when the 17-year-old son of a prominent city builder rammed their bike from behind at Kalyaninagar junction around 2.30am on May 19, 2024, while driving the high-end car back to his bungalow at Wadgaon Sheri after late-night partying with friends at a couple of pubs in Mundhwa. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Đây có thể là thời điểm tốt nhất để giao dịch vàng trong 5 năm qua IC Markets Tìm hiểu thêm Undo The teenager's father and mother, along with eight others, including two senior Sassoon General Hospital doctors (both now suspended), are being tried in a sessions court relating to the manipulation of blood alcohol tests of the teenage driver and two minors who accompanied him in the car. The JJB's order rejecting the police plea comes more than a year after the accident that created a country-wide sensation over its decision to release the teenager on bail against conditions, including writing a 300-word essay on traffic discipline. The state and the defence lawyers concluded on June 22 their respective arguments over the police plea, and the JJB reserved its final order. Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray told TOI: "We will consult senior officials from Pune police and the state law and judiciary department in Mumbai regarding the observations made by the JJB before we take a call on filing an appeal." Lawyer Prashant Patil, who represented the teenager, said, "We argued, among other things, that the offences attributed to the minor could not be termed 'heinous' in nature considering the SC ruling in the case of xxx (minor's name withheld) vs state of NCT of Delhi. The apex court held in that case that offences prescribing a maximum sentence of more than seven years but not providing any minimum sentence or providing a minimum sentence of less than seven years, cannot be considered to be 'heinous offence' within the meaning of section 2 (33) of the JJ Act. The JJB accepted our argument." In this case, the teenage driver was charged under sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 467 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code. Patil argued that neither of these sections provide for a minimum sentence like the one defined by the SC, to qualify as a "heinous" offence and trial as an adult in the context of the JJ Act. Patil said, "We also brought to the JJB's notice that criminal intention and knowledge, which are key ingredients to attract culpable homicide and forgery charges, were missing in this case. The child has no prior criminal record, and the fatal crash, though unfortunate, arose out of a moment of poor judgment." On its part, the prosecution argued that the teenage driver be tried as an adult as he was driving the car under the influence of alcohol and was well aware of the consequences of serious crimes like culpable homicide.
Time of India
15-07-2025
- Time of India
Pune Porsche Case: Teen driver will be tried as a minor, says Juvenile Justice Board
Mumbai: In a setback for the Pune police , the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday ruled that the 17-year-old boy, accused of driving a Porsche car in an inebriated state and killing two persons last year, in Pune, will be tried as a minor and not an adult. The crash case hit national headlines last year when the boy, allegedly in an inebriated state, killed two IT professionals during the crash. The Pune police had sought to try the teenager as an adult, citing the severity of the crime and the alleged attempts to tamper with evidence. The JJB, however, refused the police plea. On May 19, 2024, two young IT professionals - Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa - who were riding a motorcycle were hit by the Porsche driven by the accused. The accused, however, was granted bail within hours of his arrest, asking the accused to write a 300-word essay on road safety, sparking widespread outrage. The backlash led to the boy being sent to an observation home in Pune three days later. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo However, on June 25, 2024, the Bombay High Court intervened and ordered the boy's immediate release. The court ruled that the JJB's orders sending him to an observation home were illegal and that the law regarding juveniles must be fully implemented. Tuesday's decision means that the teenager will face proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act , which governs the treatment and trial of minors in conflict with the law. The ruling has once again sparked controversy, with many questioning the accountability of juveniles involved in serious crimes. Live Events
