Porsche Accident: 2 Juvenile Justice Board Members Dismissed For "Misuse of Power"

The minor was granted bail on the condition that he write an essay on what to do after an accident and how to avoid such incidents.
JJB, Pune
JJB, PuneGoogle Maps: Parth Pabitwar
Published on

Pune: In a major development in the Pune Porsche car accident case, the state government has taken strict action against two members of the Juvenile Justice Board.

The accident, which occurred when a minor in an intoxicated state drove a Porsche car and fatally struck two individuals on a motorcycle, had sparked public outrage after the Juvenile Justice Board granted the minor bail with a controversial condition to write a 300-word essay and work with the police for two weeks.

JJB, Pune
JJB Hearing on Porsche Car Return, Minor's Passport Postponed to September 26

Following widespread backlash on social media and in Maharashtra, the state government has dismissed the two state-appointed members of the Juvenile Justice Board involved in the decision.

The accident, which occurred in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, involved a minor, the 17-year-old son of a well-known real estate businessman, driving under the influence of alcohol.

He violated traffic rules and crashed into a motorcycle, killing Ashwini Costa instantly and injuring Anish Avadhiya, who later died during treatment in a hospital.

JJB, Pune
Mumbai High Court criticizes Pune Police over handling of Porsche accident case involving minor

The accused was arrested immediately after the incident. However, during his court appearance, the minor was granted bail on the condition that he write an essay on what to do after an accident and how to avoid such incidents, as well as spend two weeks working with the police to understand traffic rules. The essay was later submitted to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The case also led to legal action against the minor’s father and the bar owner who served alcohol to the minor and his friends. The father was arrested a few days later for allegedly attempting to shield his son from the consequences of his actions, and charges were pressed against the bar owner for violating provisions under Sections 75 and 77 of the law.

Several reports have indicated that efforts were made by various individuals in the administration to protect the minor from severe penalties.

Enjoyed reading The Bridge Chronicle?
Your support motivates us to do better. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Whatsapp to stay updated with the latest stories.
You can also read on the go with our Android and iOS mobile app.

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
The Bridge Chronicle
www.thebridgechronicle.com