May 22nd 2024.
In Pune, a local court presided over a case involving a luxury car accident on Tuesday. The court decided to keep three individuals, who were deemed responsible for the incident, in police custody until May 24. In addition, the court instructed pub and bar owners to establish a limit on the amount of alcohol they serve to customers who may be driving home on their own after patronizing their establishments.
The three accused, who were identified as the owner and two managers of different restaurants, were remanded into police custody due to their alleged involvement in the car accident that resulted in the loss of two lives. The prosecution requested that the accused be kept in custody for seven days, citing that the establishments owned or managed by the accused served alcohol to a minor without verifying his age.
The judge, while acknowledging the tragic loss of life in the accident, expressed her disappointment with the pub and bar operators. She heavily criticized their negligence and lack of responsibility in serving alcohol to their customers. According to the police, the accused minor and his friends had visited the two establishments between 9:30 pm and 1 am on Saturday night and consumed alcohol.
After hearing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense, the Additional Sessions Court Judge, SP Ponkshe, reiterated her concern for the victims and stated, "If the person is highly intoxicated, arrangements should be made for their stay at the pub. What about the people walking on the road? The patrons who have visited the pub will not be able to walk home, they will be driving their vehicles. There needs to be a change somewhere."
The judge then directed the pub and bar owners to decide on a limit for serving alcohol to their customers. She emphasized the importance of responsibility and awareness on their part, stating, "They must be aware of how much alcohol should be served. A limit needs to be established."
The defense counsel, Adv SK Jain, representing the three accused, opposed the decision to keep them in police custody. He argued that section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act is non-cognizable and that there was no need for police custody as the investigation had already been completed. However, the prosecution argued that the police required custody of the accused to further investigate the case.
In the end, the local court's decision to keep the accused in custody until May 24 and the directive for the pub and bar owners to establish a limit on alcohol served was a reflection of the court's concern for the safety of the public and the need for responsible behavior.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
