MUMBAI, March 7 -- The 17-year-old accused in the February 5 Ghatkopar SUV crash that killed businessman Dhrumil Premji Patel and injured his wife Meenal was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board in Mumbai on Friday. The victim's family says they will challenge the order in the Bombay High Court. The family had opposed the bail before the board through an intervention application filed by the complainant Mahesh Karamsi Patel, the deceased's uncle, through advocate Ruben Mascarenhas. The application urged the board to consider the gravity of the offence and circumstances of the crash before granting relief. The crash occurred at around 11.15pm on February 5 near Somaiya College in Vidyavihar, when Patel and Meenal were riding a scooter along the road. A Kia Seltos, allegedly driven by the teenager, rammed into the two-wheeler at high speed. Patel, 32, sustained severe injuries and died 10 days later, while his wife survived with serious injuries. The minor has been charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, rash and negligent driving, and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Motor Vehicles Act. The minor has been treated as a child in conflict with law and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. The development comes two days after the Sessions Court granted bail to the minor's father, who was arrested on February 10 for allegedly allowing his minor son to drive the SUV. He was arrested on February 10 and booked for allegedly allowing an unlicensed minor to operate the vehicle. While granting the father bail on Wednesday, Additional Sessions Judge RM Jadhav held that the available material did not prima facie show that the accused had knowingly permitted his son to take the car. The judge observed that the accused "was not present in the vehicle or driving the offending vehicle at the time of occurrence". Mascarenhas said Patel's family will be challenging both the bail orders - of the father and the son - in the high court, next week. While opposing the father's bail application, the victim's family contended that as the registered owner of the SUV and the natural guardian of the juvenile, he bore responsibility for allowing access to the vehicle. They also alleged that attempts had been made to settle the matter by offering Rs.40 lakh as "blood money", an allegation denied by the defence. In their intervention application before the Juvenile Justice Board, the family argued that the case involved "instruments of a motor vehicle used resulting in fatal consequences" and therefore warranted careful consideration before granting bail. The application also referred to alleged social media posts and videos purportedly showing the juvenile performing dangerous driving stunts, which allegedly demonstrated a pattern of reckless behaviour....