Supreme Court Grants Bail to Three Men in Pune Porsche Crash Case
PUNE: The Supreme Court of India on Monday granted bail to three men accused of allegedly tampering with blood samples following the May 2024 Pune Porsche crash that killed two young software engineers. A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, observing that A Sood and two others, Ashish Mittal and Santosh Gaikwad, had already spent 18 months in jail, directed their release on bail. The Supreme Court, however, warned that any violation of bail conditions imposed by the trial court could enable the prosecution to seek its cancellation.
The trio included the father of one of the boys who was in the back seat of the Porsche. The Supreme Court stated that continued incarceration would cause undue prejudice to the trio, given the nature of the allegations, the fact that the boy sitting in the back seat was not made an accused, and the maximum punishment prescribed for the principal offence.
The 17-year-old teen accused of fatally crashing his Porsche into two techies in Pune in 2024 is being tried as a child in conflict with the law (CCL) before the Juvenile Justice Board, and not as an adult. A CCL attracts no prison term if found guilty, and a maximum of 3 years in a borstal, a rehab home for minors. Hence, senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal and Prashant Patil, appearing for Sood, Siddharth Dave for Mittal, and Sana Raees Khan for Gaikwad, argued that continued incarceration would cause their respective clients great prejudice.
The Supreme Court agreed and stated, “Petitions allowed. Let them be produced before the concerned trial court. Let them be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court.”
Khan argued that the prosecution alleged that the driver of the parents of the accused juvenile handed over Rs 3 lakh to Gaikwad to, in turn, hand it over to the assistant of a doctor. However, she said the allegation was not corroborated by the statement of the driver, as he did not mention handing over the amount to the petitioner (Gaikwad), nor was the alleged amount recovered at Gaikwad’s instance. “Surprisingly, the driver of the parents of the juvenile has not been impleaded as an accused,” she argued.
