Pune Porsche car crash: SC notice to state on bail pleas of 2 accused

The petitions challenged the order of December 16 passed by the Bombay high court, which turned down the pleas filed by seven accused involved in the conspiracy to shield the main culprits - three juveniles who were in a Porsche car that crashed into a bike killing two persons on May 19, 2024

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Maharashtra government on the bail pleas filed by two of the accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash case after the Bombay high court refused to grant them relief last month.

According to the prosecution, the car was driven by a 17-year-old son of a businessman under the alleged influence of alcohol as he, along with his friends, were returning from a late-night party. (HT FILE)

Issuing notice to the state on separate petitions moved by the two accused, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, the court posted the matter for hearing on January 30. The petitions challenged the order of December 16 passed by the Bombay high court, which turned down the pleas filed by seven accused involved in the conspiracy to shield the main culprits - three juveniles who were in a Porsche car that crashed into a bike killing two persons on May 19, 2024.

While one of the accused was the father of one of the juveniles and is accused of changing the blood sample of his minor son, the other accused was joined as part of the conspiracy, as his blood sample was swapped with that of another juvenile accused present in the car at Sasoon hospital.

Senior advocate K Parmeshwar appeared for the second accused and urged the court to issue notice as the accused is in custody since August 19, 2024 and is a cardiac patient who has suffered two cardiac events since October 2025.

He further stated that the investigation against his client is complete and no custodial interrogation is required, as a supplementary charge sheet was filed in November 2024. He even denied knowing the juvenile accused or his father, as the allegation against him is of “shielding a person from legal consequences” for an offence which is yet to be proved.

Accused 1 also termed the allegation of trying to shield his minor son to be “untenable” as his son is a prosecution witness and not an offender in the present case.

The victims represented by advocate Manan Verma, who objected to the bail, also sought to be heard in the matter. The court allowed the victims to move application to be joined in the proceedings.

According to the prosecution, the car was driven by a 17-year-old son of a businessman under the alleged influence of alcohol as he, along with his friends, were returning from a late-night party. The crash occurred a little after 2 am when the car rammed the bike near Kalyani Nagar on Airport Road, killing the two bike riders - Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta.

The high court order denying them bail said, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, thus, the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant(s) would tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence is well founded.” It further noted that the examination of the material prosecution witnesses are vulnerable to “pressurising or any other influencing tactics” leading to their turning non-supportive or hostile to the prosecution case.