Pune Porsche crash: Supreme Court grants bail to three accused of swapping blood samples

The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to three persons accused of providing help to tamper with blood samples in the aftermath of Pune Porsche crash of 2024, which claimed the lives of two young software engineers [Ashish Satish Mittal vs. The State of Maharashtra & connected matter].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal and Santosh Gaikwad after noting that they have been in jail for 18 months.

While Mittal is a friend of the father of the main accused, Sood is the father of the boy who was in the backseat of the car. Gaikwad is a middleman who had received a sum of ₹3 lakh for tampering with the blood work.

"Since there is no allegation against juvenile at the backseat of car, it is unlikely that there can be allegation against them. Since allegations were made, they are in jail since 18 months. It was submitted that even as against the driver who caused the accident the punishment is of three years. The juvenile is also being tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus their continued incarceration will greatly prejudice and thus it was contended that bail be granted to the three appellants. 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," the Court said in its order.

Any infraction of conditions shall lead to cancellation of bail granted, the Bench made it clear.

The Bombay High Court had earlier denied bail to them in December last year.

The High Court had observed that granting bail to financially well-placed accused in the case could risk witness tampering and obstruct justice.

The case stemmed from an accident that occurred at around 2:30 am on May 19, 2024, when a Porsche car, allegedly driven by a juvenile in an inebriated state, rammed into a motorcycle in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar area. The crash killed 24-year-old software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both from Madhya Pradesh.

According to the prosecution, the father of the juvenile, businessman Vishal Agarwal, along with his wife and other associates, conspired with hospital doctors to manipulate the blood test reports of the juvenile and his friends, ensuring they showed no traces of alcohol. It is alleged that ₹3 lakh was paid to Sassoon Hospital staff through intermediaries, with senior medical officers accused of orchestrating the tampering.

The alleged conspiracy soon widened. Mittal and Sood were arrested later that year for their supposed roles in the blood sample swap.

Mittal, a businessman from Pune, is accused of providing his own blood sample to replace that of another juvenile present in the car. Sood, also a businessman, allegedly did the same for his teenage son, who was one of the occupants of the vehicle but was neither driving nor named in the original FIR.

Both have been in custody for over a year. Their bail applications were rejected by the High Court, which noted their financial influence and observed that key witnesses in the case - drivers, hospital staff and domestic employees - were dependent on some of the accused.

The High Court reasoned that the apprehension of witness tampering was well-founded. It observed that releasing financially powerful accused could derail the trial and undermine the victims’ families’ pursuit of justice.

In their petitions before the Supreme Court, both men argued that their continued incarceration serves no investigative purpose since the police have completed the probe and filed multiple charge sheets.

According to Mittal’s petition, he was not present at the scene of the accident and had no role in the conspiracy. He claimed he was at Sassoon Hospital for only a few minutes and that there is no direct evidence linking him to any alleged tampering or bribery. He also cited severe cardiac ailments, having suffered two cardiac emergencies while in custody, and has argued that his detention is medically unsafe and disproportionate for an offence carrying a limited sentence.

Sood’s petition similarly contended that he has been falsely implicated. He maintained that he merely complied with instructions at the hospital when asked to provide a blood sample as a parent of a detained minor. The plea noted that his son was a rear-seat passenger and not the driver, and that the child is a prosecution witness, not an accused. Sood further argued that he has no connection with the principal accused or any alleged bribe payment, and that his arrest was based on conjecture rather than evidence.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddhartha Dave and Siddharth Agarwal and advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared for the accused.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the father of one of the victims.

Mittal was also represented by advocate Anand Dilip Landge.

Sood was also represented by advocates Shakti Pandey, Abid Mulani and Divya Anand.

Gaikwad was also represented by Advocates Sana Raees Khan, Pranay Chitale and Aditya Dutta.

[Read Live Coverage]