Mercedes hit-and-run case: Juvenile Justice Board denies bail to minor, says he's a repeat offender

Delhi: The juvenile board on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of a minor accused in the killing of a 33-year-old business consultant in a hit-and-run case.

As per reports, the Juvenile Justice Board said that the class XII student was a repeat offender. 

Reacting to the development, Shilpa Mittal,victim's sister said, "Happy that accused's bail is rejected. This case should be a lesson for all parents,"as per ANI. 

His father, Manoj Aggarwal was granted bail on April 10, two days after his arrest, on personal bail bond of Rs 1 lakh.

Police had apprehended the minor offender after he killed Sidhharth Sharma by hitting with his overspeeding Mercedes car when the victim was crossing Sham Nath Marg in north Delhi's Civil Lines area to get some eatables from the nearby market. 

The minor was then freed on bail, as he was only booked under section 304A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

After an uproar followed by allegations by the victim's family that police officers were going soft on the accused, police later took a U-turn, not only changing the IPC section mentioned in the FIR but also arrested Aggarwal. 

Aggarwal was arrested under section 304 (abetting the crime of culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC as the investigators found that he, despite knowing the fact that his minor son had caused a road accident earlier, gave the vehicle's key to him.

The Delhi Police had managed to get Aggarwal's one-day custody on the basis of the proofs they submitted to the court, saying he had "not taken a single step in prohibiting his son from taking the vehicle" which is an act of criminal omission.

Police also found in its investigation that it was not the first offence of rash and negligent driving by the juvenile. In the past, he has also been found driving in such a way thereby causing a road accident with another vehicle.

Police had earlier informed court that a CCTV footage clearly showed that the minor offender was driving his car in extremely fast speed in a residential area.

(With Agency inputs)