Bail Revoked for Teen in Deadly Pune Porsche Crash; Sent to Observation Home


The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has revoked the bail of the 17-year-old involved in a fatal crash where his speeding Porsche collided with a motorbike, killing two people. The teenager has been sent to an observation home until June 5.

Pune police successfully argued for the teen's remand, citing concerns for his safety and public safety if he remained outside. "He is not safe outside as people will possibly attack him and people are safe if he is inside," police stated.

In contrast, the defense counsel highlighted the teen's struggle with depression, which led to his drinking habits. The accused expressed a preference to stay with his mother, fearing his depression could worsen if confined to a remand home. "I want to stay with my mother and would feel safe at home," he told the board.

Ahead of the JJB hearing, Pune police added new charges against the teen. Initially charged under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act (drunken driving), additional charges now include section 184 (rash or dangerous driving), section 119 (age limit for driving motor vehicles), and section 177 (general punishment provisions).

The JJB is also considering a police application to try the 17-year-old as an adult.

The incident occurred in Kalyani Nagar, Pune, where the teen, allegedly intoxicated, struck two motorbike-borne software engineers, killing them instantly.

The teen's father, Vishal Agarwal, a real estate developer, was also implicated. A sessions court placed him in police custody for two days, citing non-cooperation with the investigation. The police allege that Vishal misled them during the investigation by claiming to be in Shirdi while he was actually in Aurangabad. Upon arrest, he was found with a basic Nokia phone and a Kia-manufactured car, both of which were confiscated.

Vishal faces charges under sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 75 addresses "willful neglect of a child, or exposing a child to mental or physical illnesses," and section 77 pertains to supplying a child with intoxicating substances.

The FIR details that despite knowing his son lacked a valid driving license, Vishal permitted him to drive, endangering his life. He also allowed his son to attend parties, fully aware of his drinking habits.

This tragic incident has highlighted serious concerns about parental responsibility and the legal implications of underage drinking and driving. The JJB's decision to revoke bail and the additional charges underscore the severity of the situation and the legal repercussions for both the teenager and his father. The next hearing is crucial as the authorities determine whether the teen will be tried as an adult.

Author: Anushka Taraniya 

News Writer, MIT ADT University