A Delhi Juvenile Justice Board rejected bail for a 17-year-old driver in the fatal Dwarka crash, prioritising public safety and the minor's well-being amidst community tensions.
Key Points
- A 17-year-old driver involved in a fatal Dwarka crash has been denied bail by the Juvenile Justice Board.
- The board cited concerns for the teen's physical and psychological safety, as well as potential disruption to public order.
- The incident, involving an SUV allegedly used for a social media video, resulted in the death of a 23-year-old and serious injury to a cab driver.
- The Juvenile Justice Board emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
- The board highlighted the potential for community tension and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
A Juvenile Justice Board here has denied bail to a 17-year-old accused of driving a speeding SUV that caused a fatal crash in Dwarka, saying that his release at this stage could expose him to physical and psychological danger and would "defeat the ends of justice".
The accident occurred on February 3 when the SUV, allegedly being used to shoot a social media video, rammed into a motorcycle and a taxi in the Dwarka area.
The collision killed 23-year-old Sahil and left a cab driver seriously injured. Police said the minor was behind the wheel at the time of the crash.
Board's Decision and Rationale
Presiding officer Chitranshi Arora was hearing a bail application filed by the accused minor and said that the release of accused could "disturb public peace, and undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system".
In its order on Thursday, the board said, "The premature release of the CCLs (Children in Conflict with the Law) who are named and alleged participants in the incident is likely to aggravate the prevailing situation, disturb public peace, and undermine public confidence in the justice delivery system."
The Board noted submissions of the investigating officer stating that the incident had triggered tension between communities in the area and had a pronounced impact on public order and social harmony.
It said the continued protective custody of the minors was not punitive but necessary to secure their care, protection, psychological stability and rehabilitation, which are integral to the concept of justice under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
"This Board also finds that the release of the child litigant (minor accused) at this stage is likely to expose them to physical and psychological danger. The community tension arising out of the incident indicate a real and tangible risk of retaliation, intimidation or emotional harm, which the Board cannot ignore," it said.
While acknowledging concerns about disruption of the minors' education, the Board said such considerations could not override issues of safety, protection and rehabilitation when credible material suggested that release could be detrimental.
"The principle of the best interest of the child remains the guiding star of all decisions under the JJ Act," the Board said, adding that continued protective custody would ensure the safety, counselling, education and medical needs in a structured environment.
It concluded that granting bail at this stage could expose the minors to harm and defeat the ends of justice under the rehabilitative framework of the Juvenile Justice Act, and accordingly rejected his bail plea.
"This Board is satisfied that the release at this stage would expose them to physical and psychological danger; and defeat the ends of justice as understood within the rehabilitative and protective framework of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015," it said.
