Pune Porsche Crash Case: The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to three men accused of conspiring to swap blood samples in the aftermath of the 2024 Pune Porsche crash that claimed two lives. The top court cited their prolonged incarceration of over 18 months while ordering their release, subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court.
Bail Granted After 18 Months In Custody
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the bail pleas of Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad. The court noted that the accused had remained in custody for a considerable period and that further detention was not warranted at this stage of the proceedings.
The three are alleged to have played a role in replacing blood samples of two juveniles who were seated in the back of the car at the time of the accident. Investigators claim the swap was intended to conceal alcohol consumption. The accused have been booked under multiple provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering and bribery.
Pune Porsche Crash Case: Alleged Conspiracy And Defence Arguments
According to the prosecution, Mittal is a friend of the father of one of the juveniles, while Sood is the father of the other minor passenger. Gaikwad is alleged to have acted as a middleman and received ₹3 lakh to facilitate the blood sample replacement.
Appearing for the accused, senior advocates argued that there were no allegations against the two juveniles seated in the rear of the vehicle and that the accident was not caused by them. The defence further contended that the alleged drunk-driving juvenile is facing separate proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board and that keeping the appellants in jail served no purpose.
Pune Porsche Crash Case: Court’s Observations And Opposition To Bail
Opposing the bail pleas, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the mother of one of the deceased, termed the case a “classic example” of attempts to undermine the criminal justice system. He argued that the alleged conspiracy went beyond the accident and involved systematic manipulation of medical evidence.
While granting bail, Justice Nagarathna made strong oral observations on parental responsibility, noting a disturbing pattern in such cases where blame is shifted and evidence manipulated to limit criminal liability. She, however, clarified that the court was refraining from detailed findings to avoid influencing the ongoing trial.
