A child released on bail under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be detained in an Observation Home; such actions violate legal safeguards aimed at protecting juvenile rights.

JUDGMENT

Bharati Dangre, J. - In the early hours of 19.05.2024 a ghastly incident killed two young individuals in the city of Pune and the cause for the same happened to be Porsche car rashly driven by Master X, a child in conflict with law (hereinafter referred to as 'CCL').

It is subsequently revealed during the investigation that the CCL was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and the brand new car was being driven in a high speed, which resulted into its crash, after hitting a motorcycle with a pillion rider and this incident gathered huge attention state wide.

2. The alleged reckless act at the hands of the CCL resulted in registration of FIR bearing No.306/2024 for the offences under Section 304A, 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC and 184, 190 and 177 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (Amendment Act 2019).

A huge crowd gathered and the eye witnesses got their statements recorded about the manner in which the accident occurred, attributing rash and negligent act to the CCL and as an immediate reaction, he was held in captivity and had to face wrath of the public, who manhandled him.

The CCL was apprehended and he being a juvenile (recorded age being 17 years and 8 months) was produced before Member No.I of Juvenile Justice B3Ooard, Pune and Application filed by his Advocate securing his release on bail was taken up for consideration.On the very same day i.e. on 19.05.2024, he came to be released on bail and we shall come to the said order and subsequent orders passed by the Board under the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (for short 'Act of 2015') read with Maharashtra State Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018, a little later.

3. We must, however, take note of the haphazard manner in which the entire prosecution agency approached the issue, being rattled by the public outcry, as the entire Society was stunned by the impact of the incident, where two young innocent persons lost their lives and this is a classic case as to how the law enforcing as well as the law implementing agency reacted to the public outburst and treaded on a path of owing a moral responsibility of the CCL and his entire family, by alluding and questioning the upbringing of the the child belonging to the affluent family, by projecting their approach as having less regard to the lives of a common man on the road.

Though at this stage it may be too early to record that the CCL was guilty of rash and negligent act, we are proceeding on the basis of the FIR, which accuse him of rash and negligent act, and the offence prima facie falling under the category of rash, reckless and negligent driving attracting Section 304A and the other provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and, we, by any chance do not intend to go into the legality or otherwise of the penal provisions invoked in the subject FIR, nor are we any manner, have adverted to any subsequent action of the investigating agency, in registering subsequent offence against other members of the family.

Though the manner in which the entire situation has been handled by the respondents including the investigation wing, we can only express our dismay and perturbation by descri