Pune Porsche crash: Supreme Court grants bail to minor accused's father who conspired to swap blood samples

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, father of the minor accused in the Pune Porsche crash case which claimed the lives of two young software engineers [Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra].

Agarwal is alleged to have been part of a conspiracy to tamper with evidence following the accident, particularly the swapping of the minor’s blood sample to suppress evidence of alcohol consumption.

A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that several co-accused in connected matters had already been granted bail and that the Agarwal has spent time in jail about 22 months.

“In these circumstances, the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail,” the Court observed.

The Bench directed that Agarwal be released on bail subject to conditions.

“The appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and the trial and shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses either directly or indirectly. Any infraction of these conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest,” the Court ordered.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna also reflected on what she described as the mindset prevailing in society in such cases.

“Whatever you are saying is a reflection of the mindset of Indian society. This is how everything happens; otherwise why would we have so many such matters? Everyone wants to get the better of the law instead of facing the law. All of this happens because of the prevailing mindset in society,” Justice Nagarthna remarked.

At the same time, the Bench emphasised that such concerns cannot justify curtailing personal liberty before conviction.

The Court made this comment after Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the father of one of the victims, said that a message should be sent so that people learn to respect the law.

To this, Justice Nagarathna said,

“Not at the cost of a person losing his liberty.”

The top court was dealing with plea filed by Agarwal challenging the Bombay High Court’s order which had denied him bail.

The FIR was registered following a fatal accident that took place in the early hours of 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 residents of Madhya Pradesh.

According to the prosecution, the father of the accused 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.

In the chargesheet, Agarwal was booked under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 213 and 214 (offences relating to screening an offender), and Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 (forgery and use of forged documents), among others.

His bail plea was earlier rejected by the Sessions Court and later by the Bombay High Court.

He then moved the Supreme Court.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Agarwal, argued that the present case concerned the father’s bail plea and that several other accused persons had already been granted bail.

“This is the father’s bail plea. Everyone else has already been granted bail. The child was driving, but I had provided a driver. Beyond that what can the father do?” Rohatgi submitted.

The Standing Counsel for the State opposed the plea. He argued that the allegations were serious and that parity with the co-accused could not be claimed.

He submitted that the appellant, being the father of the minor driver, had attempted to not only suppress evidence but also substitute it through the replacement of blood samples.

Sankaranarayanan too weighed in and told the Court that the case went beyond a mere road accident.

“Thousands of road accidents occur in this country, but this case is not about the accident itself. This man goes and substitutes the blood sample. He bribes the doctors. The driver says he was coerced to take the blame. This is a serious case involving bribery and corruption. You are defrauding the judiciary,” he argued.

Responding to concerns about the seriousness of the allegations, Justice Nagarathna observed that bail jurisprudence must ultimately be guided by the principle of personal liberty.

“It should not be at the cost of a man losing his liberty. What are our educational institutions doing? Being straightforward is not taught to our children,” she remarked.

She also pointed to the broader issue of bail denials leading to repeated appeals.

“In every case, we start denying bail. Why are people coming to the Supreme Court for bail? These are all symptoms in society where the trial court denies bail, the High Court denies bail, and then they come here,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Sankaranarayanan responded that there were also many cases where the top court had denied bail.

“In some WhatsApp message cases, the Court has denied bail. This case is 50 times more serious. This is not just about a car accident. A strong message needs to be sent that deep pockets will not get you bail,” he argued.

After hearing brief submissions from counsel, the Bench granted bail to Agarwal and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Advocates Shakti Pandey and Prashant Patil appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Live Coverage]