By 
The Bombay High Court’s Bench of Justice Shivkumar Dige, has upheld the cancellation of bail granted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to Uttam Bhushan who was a minor at the time of a fatal road accident.
Case Background
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on February 5, 2026. At the time, the Applicant was 17 years and 8 months old. He allegedly drove his father’s car in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed. The car hit the husband of Respondent No.1, who was riding a motorcycle. The husband later died from his injuries, and Respondent No.1 was left permanently disabled.
The JJB had initially granted bail to the Applicant. Respondent No.1 then challenged this decision in the Sessions Court, which cancelled the bail. The Applicant thereafter took the matter to the High Court, seeking relief.
Applicant’s Arguments
The Applicant argued that he was under 18 at the time of the incident, was a student, had no criminal record and had cooperated fully with the investigation. He also pointed out that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had already been filed, and he had been attending all the JJB hearings regularly.
Court’s Reasoning
The State and Respondent No.1 claimed that the Applicant often performed dangerous stunts on motorcycles and cars and posted videos of them on Instagram. They submitted screenshots showing him driving a car while people sat on the bonnet and others hung out of the vehicle without seatbelts. Other screenshots showed him riding a scooter with two passengers, none wearing helmets, while doing a wheelie.
The High Court observed that these activities demonstrated that the Applicant had put not only his own safety but also the safety of others at risk. The Court also noted that his parents apparently knew about this behavior but did nothing to stop it.
The court stated:
“The Applicant was driving the two-wheeler and four wheeler vehicle before attaining the age of 18, which is the lawful age for driving a vehicle, and he was driving them on the road precariously, which would have caused danger to the general public, who were not at fault. It shows that parents of the Applicant have no control over the activities of the Applicant.”
The Court also pointed out that the Applicant had been driving two-wheelers and four wheelers before he was legally allowed to, and that this kind of behavior put innocent members of the public at risk.
The court also observed:
“…the family of CCL had offered some money to the victims to settle the matter and it reveals that CCL was involved in the company of spoiled and affluent children and was making stunts on two wheelers and four wheelers, which may be dangerous to the lives of other persons.”
Another factor considered by the Court was this: after being released on bail, the Applicant was required to stay at Koparkhairane. However, when the police visited the address, he was not found there. The Court saw this as a sign that he did not respect the law.
The Court also noted claims that the stunt videos were deleted from the Applicant’s Instagram account after the offence was registered, which the prosecution said amounted to destruction of evidence.
The Court said that even though the Applicant is a student, he could still be exposed to moral, physical and psychological harm without proper parental guidance, and might repeat this kind of dangerous behaviour.
The Court also took into account that one person had lost his life and another (Respondent No.1) was left permanently disabled because of this incident. It ruled that these facts did not justify overturning the Sessions Court’s decision.
The court said:
“It is necessary to curb such activities, which spoil children and causes threat to the society. Though he is a student, keeping him in a reformative home would make him understand gravity of his act. ”
Court’s Judgement:
Consequently, Justice Dige found no merit in the case and dismissed the Criminal Revision Application.
Case Details: Uttam Valji Bhushan v. Mrs. Menal Dhrumil Patel and Anr.
