[This Blog is authored by Prakhar Bajpai, a student at Rajiv Gandhi National Law University]

---

Introduction

The decision to grant bail to a minor in the Pune Porsche case has sparked significant public and legal debate, when a 17-year-old involved was granted bail. This tragic event occurred when the minor fatally struck two young IT professionals on a motorbike. After a few hours of the accident, the Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the minor. However, following public outrage, the Pune juvenile court revoked the bail and sent the teenager to an Observation Home. 

The ruling was based on two crucial legal frameworks: Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act and the precedent set by the Shilpa Mittal judgment. These legal principles aim to balance justice and rehabilitation but have faced criticism when applied to high-profile cases like this one, raising questions about public sentiment, judicial discretion, and the need for potential legislative reforms.

Why was bail granted in the first place?

The minor was granted bail based on two key aspects: the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which emphasizes rehabilitation over incarceration, and the precedent set by the Shilpa Mittal judgment; which classifies offenses with maximum punishment of 10 years as serious but not heinous. These legal frameworks ensure that minors are granted bail unless their release poses a specific danger or threat, aligning with the broader principles of juvenile justice.

1. Section 12 of JJ Act

Under the JJ Act, granting bail, with or without sureties, is the norm. Bail can only be denied under the specific circumstances outlined in Section 12 of the Act, which states that the person shall not be released if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the release is likely to bring that person into association with any known criminal; bail cannot be granted if it exposes the person to moral, physical, or psychological danger and the minor’s release would defeat the ends of justice. Furthermore, the Act mandates that under no circumstances can a child be kept behind bars. Section 12 does not differentiate between bailable and non-bailable offences. The merit of the case or the gravity of the offence is not a valid reason to deny bail. Bail must be provided with or without sureties.

2. Shilpa Mittal Judgement 

Juvenile justice act divides the offences into 3 parts- ‘Petty offences’ for which the maximum punishment provided is imprisonment up to 3 years. ‘Serious offences’ means, offences for which punishment is imprisonment between 3 to 7 years and ‘Heinous offences’ have been defined to mean offences for which the minimum punishment under any law is imprisonment for 7 years or more.   Now according to the act if any teenager between the age of 16-18 years needs to be tried as adult because of the gravity of the offence, he must commit a heinous offence whose punishment is minimum of 7 years of imprisonment. 

The problem arose when in the case of Shilpa Mittal, it was observed that apart from these 3 types of offences there was another type of offences whose punishments were of maximum 10 years and therefore, they did not fit in any of the 3 offences defined in the JJ Act this category included offences relating to counterfeiting of currency, homicide not amounting to murder (as in the present case), abetment to suicide of child or innocent person. It was observed in this case that heinous offences are defined as those with a minimum imprisonment of seven years. The court emphasized that the word “minimum” is critical and cannot be ignored or reinterpreted to include offences with less than seven years of minimum sentencing, it acknowledged that the legislation does not address offences where the maximum sentence is more than seven years, but no minimum sentence or a minimum sentence of less than seven years is prescribed. This creates a fourth category of offences not explicitly covered by the Act. However, the court highlighted that exceptions in statutory interpretation should be narrowly construed. Treating children as adults is an exception in the Juvenile Justice system, which should not be broadly applied. The court reiterated that it is not within its purview to legislate or fill in legislative gaps. However, it can interpret the existing law within the framework provided by the legislature. The court directed those offences falling into the undefined fourth category (where the maximum sentence is more than seven years, but the minimum is less than seven years or not specified) should be treated as “aggravated offences.” 

Therefore, the bail was granted under the following conditions: the minors must visit the RTO to study all rules and regulations, present a presentation to the Juvenile Justice Board within 15 days, assist RTO officials and study traffic rules for 15 days, submit a report, and undergo external de-addiction counselling for alcohol consumption.

Rule of Law v Rule by Law

The Pune Porsche case highlights a strong public expectation that grave offences committed by children should result in the denial of bail as a form of punishment. Legally, releasing the minor on bail was consistent with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Nonetheless, the shock and outrage among the general public suggests that the Board’s order was “a mockery of justice.” The Board faced significant criticism for this decision and ultimately had to cancel the bail. In light of the criticism and public outrage in the Pune Porsche case, Juvenile Justice Boards may adopt a more cautious approach when granting bail to minors. This could lead to a stricter interpretation of the law, prioritizing public sentiment over legal provisions. The intense scrutiny and backlash faced by the Board in the Pune case may instil a fear of similar repercussions among other JJBs, The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud have flagged the rising apprehension that right to personal liberty is losing ground in trial courts, with jail, and not bail, becoming the rule. The Chief Justice said there is a growing reluctance on the part of trial judges to grant bail. This could result in decisions that lean towards denying bail to avoid controversy and maintain public confidence in the justice system. Minors who are entitled to bail under the Juvenile Justice Act might find it increasingly difficult to secure bail, even in cases where the law clearly supports their release. This could undermine the legal rights of juveniles and contradict the principles of the Juvenile Justice Act, which aims to rehabilitate rather than punish minors.

The FIR in the Pune Porsche case was amended from Section 304A IPC, which addresses causing death by negligence with a maximum punishment of 2 years, to Section 304 IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and carries a maximum punishment of 10 years. This amendment appears to be an attempt to convey a harsher stance on the offense to the public, aiming to calm public outrage by signalling tougher penalties. However, this change may not significantly impact the outcome of the case. The Shilpa Mittal judgment clearly states that offenses with a maximum punishment of 10 years are considered serious, but under the Juvenile Justice Act, only heinous offenses warrant trying a minor as an adult. Therefore, despite the amendment, the teen involved in the case is likely to secure bail. The police seems to be aware of this, yet they proceeded with the FIR amendment, likely to placate public sentiment. This situation underscores how media trials can influence the legal process, reflecting a legislative intent to impose stricter penalties for serious offenses like hit-and-run cases. Nonetheless, the core issue remains the balance between public pressure and the due process of law.

Future Implications – Can Bail be Cancelled?

The decision to cancel the bail in the Pune Porsche case raises important questions about the nature and implications of such a legal action. What kind of law allows for the cancellation of bail, and how should this cancellation be viewed? Even the Bombay High Court questioned the source of power to remand a juvenile to an observation home once bail has already been granted. In the statute it is said that he will be under supervision of a probation officer or under the care of a fit person. Fundamentally, the Juvenile Justice Act permits bail for minors under certain conditions, aiming to balance the need for accountability with the principles of rehabilitation and reintegration. Other than these conditions bail cannot be denied to the juvenile. The merit of the case or the gravity of the offence is no ground to reject bail. Bail is to be provided with or without sureties.

Need to Change the Law

Section 304A IPC is now Section 106 under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), increases the punishment for the same offence to maximum of 10 years. The legislative intent needs to be appreciated here because earlier for the same offence the accused would get the punishment for maximum of 2 years and now it is maximum 10 years. However, if a major person is tried under this section, it would be a useful addition as now the judge is not bound by those 2 years limit. However, a juvenile charged under this section would still likely get bail and avoid being tried as an adult due to the Shilpa Mittal judgement. 

To avoid situation like these to occur in the future, amendment needs to be done in the Juvenile Justice Act to explicitly define the fourth category of offenses with maximum punishments exceeding seven years but without a specified minimum sentence or with a minimum sentence less than seven years. This new category should clearly outline how these offenses should be treated concerning juvenile offenders. This new category can be called as “intermediate offenses” for those crimes where the maximum sentence is more than seven years but less than ten years and the criteria and procedures for handling such cases, including under what circumstances minors should be tried as adults. Moreover, a mandatory review mechanism by a higher judicial authority or a specialized juvenile justice board for cases involving serious and intermediate offenses. This review would ensure that decisions to try minors as adults or to grant bail are consistent and based on established legal standards.

Conclusion

The Pune Porsche case reveals a critical tension between legal provisions and public sentiment. Initially, the 17-year-old involved was granted bail under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which prioritizes the rehabilitation of minors over punitive measures. However, this decision was met with significant public outrage, leading the Pune juvenile court to revoke the bail and send the teenager to an Observation Home. 

The case highlights the influence of media and public opinion on legal proceedings, potentially leading to stricter interpretations of the law to placate public sentiment. This could result in minors facing greater difficulty in obtaining bail, even when legally entitled to it under the JJ Act. Such a shift could undermine the rehabilitative intent of the juvenile justice system. Ultimately, while the legislative intent to impose stricter penalties for serious offenses like hit-and-run cases is clear, there is a need for a balanced approach that upholds the principles of juvenile justice. Ensuring that legal decisions are guided by the rule of law rather than public outrage is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the justice system and the rights of minors.