Pune:

The case against the Pune teen – who killed two people early Sunday while drunk and driving his father’s Rs 2.5 crore Porsche supercar – took an additional twist Thursday evening.

The police will now also investigate potential lapses in protocol in the hours following the incident, including possible preferential treatment for the 17-year-old son of a prominent city builder.

Specifically, a senior cop – Assistant Commissioner of Police Ashwini Rakh – will question officers and staff at the police station in Yerwada where the complaint was first filed. The allegations include underplaying the horrific nature of the incident in the first write-ups and delaying a medical examination, which should have been done immediately to establish the boy’s blood alcohol level.

But perhaps most shocking is a claim that the cops were more interested in ‘investigating’ Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta – the 24-year-old software professionals who were killed.

Pizza, Burger For Teen In Pune Porsche Crash?

Meanwhile, an opposition politician has said the boy was handled cautiously and even given food – pizzas and burgers – while in police custody as an accused in a stomach-churning road accident.

The claim was made by Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi chief and two-time ex-Lok Sabha MP Prakash Ambedkar, who posted on X, “Officers at Yerwada Police Station spent more time questioning the relationship between Anish and Ashwini – IT professionals fatally knocked down by drunk minor -while the accused was allegedly served burger and pizza”, and posed six questions to the cops.

Officers at Yerawada police station spent more time questioning the relationship between Anish and Ashwini — the two IT professionals who were fatally knocked down by the drunk minor — while the accused was allegedly served burger and pizza.

This is how the system benefits the…

— Prakash Ambedkar (@Prksh_Ambedkar) May 22, 2024

Among the questions he raised (and which may now be answered) were the eight-hour delay in administering a blood alcohol test and why the boy was not sent directly to a remand home.

READ | “1 Hour TV, 2 Hours Play Time”: Pune Teen’s Remand Home Schedule

There was outrage after the Juvenile Board gave the boy bail within 15 hours on conditions as ridiculous as two bonds of Rs 7,500 each and writing a 300-word essay on road accidents. Late Wednesday that order was revised and the boy was sent to a remand home till June 5.

At present the boy faces a drunk driving charge that, for a first-time offence, limits punishment to six months jail and a fine of Rs 10,000. A charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder will be levied should the Juvenile Board allow him to be tried as an adult.

Rahul Gandhi On Pune Porsche Crash

Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has also questioned the cops over preferential treatment for the boy, asking why accused in similar cases – if they are auto or cab drivers – don’t get bail as quickly.

READ | With 7 Conditions, Teen Porsche Driver Got Bail On Grandad’s Say

“When a teen from a rich family drinks alcohol and kills two people in a Porsche… he is told to pen an ‘essay’. Why are bus, truck, and auto drivers, or cabbies, not asked to write such essays?”

“The question is of equal justice (for) the poor and prosperous…” he said.

Father’s Mobile Phone Found

Police have also found the mobile phone of the boy’s father, who was arrested the day after the incident from Sambhajinagar (earlier Aurangabad) after an elaborate rescue plan was thwarted.

READ | Pune Teen’s Father Had Big Escape Plan. How Was He Caught?

The phone – understood to be the father’s original, which he left at home while trying to escape the cops – is now in the custody of the Crime Branch, which says he is not cooperating with the probe.

The father faces a charge of willful neglect of his son under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

NDTV Explains | Charges Against Pune Builder, Son Who Killed 2 With Porsche

The bar where the boy was served alcohol has been sealed, and its owner and staff are in police custody. They are being investigated for selling liquor to an under-aged individual.

At 17 years and 8 months, the boy was four months short of the legal age for driving and eight years shy of Maharashtra’s legal drinking age, which is 25.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

New Delhi:

Two techies were killed after a speeding Porsche – being driven by a 17-year-old boy – hit their bike in Pune on Saturday. The incident has triggered massive anger, with many blaming lax laws for deaths due to rash driving and minors on the wheels.

The teen who was at the wheel, son of a prominent realtor from the city, is just four months short of 18 years – the minimum age required to legally drive a car.

The teen’s father has been arrested. Additionally, the owners of a couple of bars where the minor was served alcohol have also been arrested.

The minor was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on conditions — he has to work with traffic police in Yerwada for 15 days, write an essay on accidents, undergo treatment for his drinking habit and take counselling sessions.

In response to the bail decision, Pune Police have filed an application with the sessions court to try the juvenile as an adult.

Charges Against Teen

The teen would be tried and punished under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with drink driving offences.

The act states that drink driving is a criminal offense if a breath analyzer test reveals that the blood alcohol concentration of the driver of the motor vehicle is more than 30 mg per 100 ml.

For the first drink driving offence under the act, a person can get six months of jail and a fine of Rs 10,000. For a second offence, you could spend up to 2 years in jail and be fined Rs 15,000 (up from Rs 3,000). Repeat offenders might also face penalties related to their driving licenses.

Police are also trying to prove a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where there is knowledge that the act could cause death.

Charges Against Teen’s Father

A case has been filed against the teen’s father under Sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act. These sections pertain to willful neglect of a child and providing intoxicating substances to a minor, respectively.

The former deals with the willful neglect of a child, or exposing a child to mental or physical illnesses, for which punishment can stretch to a three-year jail term and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The latter deals with supplying a child with intoxicating liquor, or any narcotics or drugs, unless prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner, and those convicted could face up to seven years in jail.

Pune:

A local court hearing the luxury car accident case on Tuesday remanded three accused in police custody till May 24, and directed the pub and bar operators to decide a limit on how much liquor should be served to their customers as the latter use their own vehicles to drive back home afterwards.

The court remanded the three accused – an owner and two managers of different restaurants – in police custody in the case of a car accident allegedly involving a 17-year-old boy that claimed the lives of two persons in the early hours of Sunday.

While seeking their custody for seven days, the prosecution told the court that the establishments owned or managed by the accused served liquor to the boy and his friends without confirming his age.

Expressing concern over the loss of two lives in the accident, the judge, while remanding the three accused into police custody, came down heavily on the pub and bar operators.

On the intervening night of Saturday and Sunday, the accused juvenile along with his friends went to the two establishments between 9.30 am and 1 am and allegedly consumed liquor, the police said.

After hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence, Additional Sessions Court Judge S P Ponkshe expressed concern over the loss of two lives in the accident, and said, “…If the person is highly drunk, make arrangements for his stay there. What should people walking on the road do? Those who have come to the pub would not go home walking. They will go driving their vehicles. A change has to be there somewhere.” She asked the establishments to decide on the limit to serve the liquor to the patrons.

“They must be aware how much should be served. Decide a limit on it,” she said.

Adv S K Jain, the defence counsel representing the three accused, opposed the police custody and said that section 77 of Juvenile Justice Act is non-cognisable, and argued that there is no need of the police custody as the investigation in the case was already done.

The prosecution, however, said that the police need to investigate the case and for that they need the custody of the accused.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)