Delhi: Juvenile accused in fatal Dwarka accident gets bail

A Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to a 17-year-old in a fatal accident, citing lack of parental supervision and potential for reform.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on Tuesday granted bail to the 17-year-old boy accused in an accident which killed a 23-year-old biker Sahil Dhaneshra in Dwarka, observing that justice will still be met if the accused is let out.

The incident occurred on February 3 this year when Dhaneshra was travelling on his two-wheeler, and a speeding SUV allegedly with the teenager at the wheel, struck him and then rammed into a parked cab, critically injuring its driver too. (PTI)

Principal magistrate Chitranshi Arora, in a 16-page-order, noted that lack of adequate parental supervision had contributed to the incident and granted bail on a personal bond of ₹20,000.

“The incident arose in the backdrop of insufficient parental monitoring…the parents of the CCL (child in conflict with law) have acknowledged their lapse, accepted responsibility for the conduct of the child, and have expressed willingness to adopt corrective and preventive measures, including strict supervision,” the order noted.

The incident occurred on February 3 this year when Dhaneshra was travelling on his two-wheeler, and a speeding SUV allegedly with the teenager at the wheel, struck him and then rammed into a parked cab, critically injuring its driver too.

The minor, who did not possess a driving licence, was apprehended and sent to an observation home. Police have registered a case under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) dealing with rash and negligent driving, causing death by negligence, and endangering human life. The juvenile’s father was also bound down by police.

When the accused was first produced before the JJB, the board had observed that the minor “appeared to show no remorse” and “did not understand the preciousness of taking a life”.

Six days after his arrest, on February 10, the JJB granted interim bail to the 17-year-old to enable him to appear for his Class 10 board examinations, directing him to surrender on March 9 after completion of the exams.

In Tuesday’s order, the magistrate refused to consider the prosecution’s contention that the minor accused was a habitual offender who had multiple challans against his vehicle.

Acknowledging that the offending vehicle belonged to the minor’s father and had been driven by several of his employees who could have attracted those challans, the board said, “At this stage, no conclusive inference can be drawn against the minor on the basis of the said challans, without proper verification.”

The board emphasised that the prosecution and the victim’s mother had failed to bring on record evidence to show that the release of the minor would bring him into association with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger.

The board said that its initial observation of the minor showing no remorse, was made at a nascent stage and was not a conclusive determination of the child’s capacity to reform.

Further, during the minor’s time in observation home for six days, he had undergone corrective intervention and multiple assessment reports indicated that he was a first-time offender, and that his parents have expressed willingness to exercise strict parental control and undertake corrective measures, the magistrate said.

The board noted that the determination of grant of bail is guided by Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, where “bail is the rule and denial an exception”.

The magistrate held that while the present offence was serious and unfortunate in its consequences, it does not fall under the category of “heinous offences” which could influence the ruling on bail.

The board also laid down a number of conditions on the release, including that the minor shall remain under strict supervision of his parents and that he shall not be allowed to drive any motor vehicle till he attains adulthood.

In his bail plea, moved through advocates Lal Singh Thakur, Hemani Verma and Lokesh Solanki, the minor contended that he was being falsely implicated and that the incident was “purely accidental” with no intention to cause injury or death.

The victim’s lawyer, advocate Aman Singh Bakshi, told HT, “We will study the order and take all legal recourse to challenge it before the appropriate court.”