2024 Pune Posche case: SC grants bail to 3 accused of swapping minors’ blood samples

The Supreme Court granted bail to three accused of evidence tampering in the Pune Porsche crash case, emphasizing no punishment before conviction.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to three people accused of evidence tampering in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash case, observing that there cannot be “punishment before conviction”. The court asked the state to focus on the main case involving the juvenile offender, whose rash and drunken driving led to the death of two people.

The Supreme Court asked the state government to focus on the main case involving the juvenile offender whose rash driving in an inebriated state resulted in the death of two people. (REUTERS)

A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan directed that Aditya Avinash Sood, Ashish Satish Mittal and Amar Santosh Gaikwad be released on bail, subject to conditions to be set by the trial court. The court warned them not to contact any witnesses in the case, directly or indirectly, failing which their bail would be cancelled.

The court also asked the three to cooperate with the trial, after the state government alleged that the accused had delayed proceedings and obtained a stay on framing of charges.

The bench said, “You focus on the offence, prosecute and convict them. The accused here are alleged to have helped two juveniles who are not the main accused in the crime. Can there be a punishment before conviction?”

Another fact considered by the court was the 18 months of incarceration already undergone by the accused. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddharth Dave and Siddharth Aggarwal, appearing for the accused, argued that their clients were only accused of helping two juveniles who were not driving the car.

Sood, the father of one of the juveniles present in the car, is accused of changing the blood sample of his son. The other two accused, Mittal and Gaikwad, are alleged to be middlemen who accepted bribes to facilitate the blood sample swap of the two minors at Sassoon Hospital.

The main accused, a child in conflict with law (CCL), is being tried as a juvenile. His father, accused of conspiracy in evidence tampering, has not yet challenged the high court’s common order of December last year denying bail to seven accused.

The victim’s family also opposed the bail. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate Manan Verma for the victims said that the act of the accused “undermines” the justice delivery system as using money and influence they have managed to swap the blood samples and influence the investigation.

Even the state told the court that the investigation has revealed a “disturbing pattern of criminal conduct” as the family of the main juvenile accused is known to resort to “influence, money power and unlawful means” and any relief shown to the accused will impact the trial of the case.

“The nature and gravity of the offence are extremely serious. The alleged acts are not confined to an individual wrongdoing but have wider ramifications affecting public confidence in hospitals, forensic processes, and the fairness of criminal trials,” the state said in an affidavit opposing the bail pleas.

The bench agreed that the conduct of the juvenile offenders is not acceptable at all. “Allowinng children to consume alcohol and giving them a car for celebrating like this. Ultimately it shows parents are unable to control children and see how innocent people have been killed in the name of this celebration,” the bench observed.

According to the prosecution, the car was driven by a 17-year-old under the alleged influence of alcohol after he and his friends were returning from a late night party. The crash occurred a little after 2am when the car rammed into a bike near Kalyani Nagar on Airport Road killing 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.