We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pune-teen-who-killed-2-people-with-porsche-got-bail-in-15-hours-5703712
Firstly John Locke argued that the rule of law is fundamental to a just society. The principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a cornerstone of this rule of law. Granting bail aligns with Locke’s view that individuals should not be deprived of their liberty without due process. Immediate bail respects this foundational legal principle.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of the social contract emphasizes that the state must act in a manner that respects the rights and freedoms of individuals, even if they are accused of a crime. The provision of bail reflects the state’s commitment to protecting individual freedoms while ensuring that justice is served.
According to John Rawls’ theory of justice as fairness, society’s institutions must be structured so that they benefit the least advantaged and ensure fair treatment for all. Granting bail ensures that the accused has the opportunity to prepare a defense, which is a fair and just treatment under the law.
Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Detaining a person pre-trial, especially if they can adhere to bail conditions, may cause unnecessary harm and suffering. Granting bail minimizes this suffering, aligning with utilitarian principles.
Isaiah Berlin distinguished between positive and negative liberty. Granting bail can be seen as an affirmation of negative liberty, which is freedom from undue interference by the state. The judge’s decision protects this aspect of personal liberty while still holding the accused accountable to legal proceedings.
Immanuel Kant’s ethics emphasizes respect for human dignity and autonomy. By granting bail, the judge respects the individual’s autonomy, allowing them the dignity to participate in their defense and manage their affairs while awaiting trial.
Ronald Dworkin argued that rights are fundamental to the concept of law. The right to due process is integral to justice, and granting bail upholds this right by ensuring the accused can engage fully in the legal process without undue hardship.
Aristotle’s notion of distributive justice implies that equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally based on relevant differences. If bail conditions are met by the accused, then granting bail ensures that they are treated equally under the law, reflecting Aristotle’s vision of justice.
Friedrich Hayek emphasized the importance of the rule of law in preserving individual freedom. Granting bail upholds the rule of law by ensuring that the accused is treated according to established legal procedures, rather than being subject to arbitrary detention.
Legal pragmatism, as advocated by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., suggests that the law should be flexible and practical. Granting bail is a pragmatic approach that balances the need for justice with the practicalities of individual rights and the presumption of innocence.
This is extremely idiotic, that kid needs to be punished. Your post feels like you'd volunteer to write that 300 words essay for him. I highly doubt the judge granted bail for the reasons you listed. A local MLA got involved and they tried to put the blame on the driver. Earlier blood tests were forged and police said there was no alcohol. Later cctv footage revealed he drank 30mins before driving.
Presumption of innocence? This is blanant disregard of the law and enforces the unsaid rule that if you're rich enough the law won't do anything to you in India.
Imagine you have two bulls. You love them both equally, but one is stronger and can do more things than the other. When you give them tasks, you don't give them the same tasks because you know that wouldn't be fair. Instead, you give each bull tasks they can handle, respecting their individual abilities. This way, both bulls are treated fairly according to what they can do.
In the same way, the law treats everyone equally by applying the same rules to everyone, whether they are rich or poor. Bail is like a promise to come back to court and face justice, and it's available to everyone who can meet the conditions, not just the wealthy. Just as you wouldn't punish one bull more harshly because they can handle it better, the law doesn't punish someone more just because they have money. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the person returns for their trial, not to judge their guilt or innocence before the trial.
The accused will still face trial (and even a media trial) and be judged for their actions, but it must be done in a way that respects the rules and fairness that we all rely on in society.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/scrap-bail-give-maximum-punishment-to-teen-pune-porshe-victims-family-5707794#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll
and from your comment, it seems like making an argument isn’t a strong suit of yours either.
A rich corporate lawyer Jhanavi Gadkar (Talwar Thakkore Associates and later Reliance In House Counsel)
She drunk alcohol, drove her audi super fast and killed many members of an innocent family.
She lives Scott free. She was so rich that even her criminal case never happened.
https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/247510-What-happened-to-Janhavi-Gadkar-
from your question, i believe you expected something like a jail term or death penalty to the accused boy.
well if that’s the case, ask your political masters to bring a new statute that would amend the existing laws that’d cater to your needs and wants. why go on abusing judiciary and legal system? they dont make laws, do they?
The juvenile court has three members. Two of them can hear a case. When the accused was brought to the juvenile court on Sunday, the appointed member and acting magistrate N.L.Dhanwade was the lone member granted the bail. One member alone cannot decide the bail plea.
No point in defending a justice system that is corrupt to the core, just because you are a part of it!
Legal action also being taken against the pub where he was served alcohol despite being a minor. I hope all these pubs have their license cancelled.
https://x.com/ShivAroor/status/1792789390034665617
Act like lawyers/law students, not JNU students please
Ppl are completely mixing up "arrest" with "conviction". The purpose of JC is only in cases the accused can tamper evidence, influence witnesses etc. In cases where the evidence is already at hand (such as CCTV etc.) bail is the norm. If the accused is convicted, he will serve the sentence for the offence. Denial of bail as a tool to "punish" is one of the most atrocious features of our criminal justice system. How many undertrials languish in JC without their trial proceeding at all - this should shock your conscience. Instead, base minded uncultured ppl seem to take vicarious pleasure in the sufferings of others.