In the early hours of May 19, the juvenile was allegedly driving the Porsche at a very high speed while inebriated when the car crashed into a bike killing two software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta.

A source said on the condition of anonymity, “As mandated by the JJB order, which was retained by the HC, the CCL (child in conflict with law) submitted his essay to the JJB on July 3. For the compliance of the condition that he undergo psychological counselling by doctors at Sassoon hospital, his aunt, in whose custody he has been released, had approached Sassoon hospital. The hospital authorities had sought directions from the JJB in this regard. His lawyers have filed an application to the JJB seeking directions to Sassoon authorities. In the same manner, the RTO was approached for compliance. The JJB has directed RTO officials to coordinate with the CCL for compliance.”

The JJB order of May 19 — of which the only signatory was non-judicial member Dr L N Danawade — had said while granting bail, “The parent of CCL is directed to present the CCL before the Board as and when his presence is required. The parent of CCL is directed to keep him away from joining any bad company. CCL will visit RTO office and study all the rules and regulation and prepare presentation and submit same to Juvenile Justice Board within 15 days and CCL will write essay of 300 words on topic in effect of road accident and their solution. CCL will assist RTO officials and practice and study traffic rules for 15 days and submit a report of the same to JJB. Refer CCL to de-addiction counselling and submit its report to the JJB. The CCL will consult a psychiatrist at Sassoon hospital.” During his remand at the observation home, the minor has undergone de-addiction counselling.

On June 25, the Bombay High Court had allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the minor’s aunt seeking the quashing of remand orders sending him to the observation home, where he was lodged since May 22. The High Court had said in its order, “We issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the release of the CCL from the observation home where he is detained, despite being released on bail by a validly passed order by the Board on May 19 forthwith. We also quash and set aside the impugned order dated May 22 and the subsequent orders dated June 5 and the order dated June 12, which have authorised the continuation of the CCL in the observation home which, according to us, is illegal, as the orders being without jurisdiction conferred on the Board.”

Following his detention after the accident on May 19, the minor was produced before the JJB in Pune in the afternoon of the same day. The police had sought his remand in the juvenile observation home and had also appealed that he be tried as an adult. The JJB — which consisted of just one non-judicial member on May 19, a Sunday, instead of its full strength of three, including one judicial member — had then rejected the applications and had granted bail to the accused on various conditions, including writing the essay, studying traffic safety norms and undergoing counselling.

The Pune police had then challenged the JJB order in the district court which referred the matter back to the JJB to be decided again. On May 22, the three-member JJB remanded the minor to the observation home till June 5 with psychological and de-addiction counselling among the terms for rehabilitation and reform. The remand was further extended on June 5 and June 12.