Pune Porsche crash: Supreme Court seeks response on bail pleas by businessmen accused of swapping blood samples

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Maharashtra government on two petitions filed by men accused of helping tamper with blood samples in the aftermath of last year’s Pune Porsche crash, 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 issued notice on the appeals filed by Aditya Sood and Ashish Mittal, both of whom were denied bail by the Bombay High Court in December. The High Court had earlier observed that granting bail to financially well-placed accused in the case could risk witness tampering and obstruct justice..The case stems 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 have 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 has 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 has 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 contends that he has been falsely implicated. He has 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 notes that his son was a rear-seat passenger and not the driver, and that the child is a prosecution witness, not an accused. Sood has 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..Both petitions assert that the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (causing disappearance of evidence) is either bailable or, at most, triable for a limited term. They have contended that the High Court failed to distinguish their individual roles from the main accused and that their continued detention amounts to pre-trial punishment.They have also drawn attention to the fact that the juvenile’s mother, Shivani Agarwal, has already been granted interim relief by the Supreme Court in connection with the same FIR..The Supreme Court will hear the matter next after the State files its response. .Mittal was represented by advocate Anand Dilip Landge. Sood was represented by advocates Shakti Pandey, Abid Mulani and Divya Anand. .Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.