The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Maharashtra government’s response to the bail plea of the father of the 17-year-old main accused in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash, which killed two people. Vishal Agarwal moved the top court after the Bombay high court refused him bail on December 16. He sought interim bail, pointing out that the top court had granted bail to other accused in this case.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said, “We will grant it to you finally.” When the lawyer appearing for the state resisted, the bench observed, “The petitioner [father] was not driving the car, so why keep him inside.”
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for Agarwal, submitted that his client has been accused of conspiracy to shield his son by allegedly swapping his blood sample for testing. He urged parity with the other accused, saying Agarwal has been in jail for 21 months since June 1, 2024.
On February 2, the same bench granted bail to three other accused allegedly involved in the swapping of blood samples. It blamed the parents of the minor for not enforcing strict control over the children.
The prosecution said the 17-year-old was returning from a late-night party with his friends under the alleged influence of alcohol around 2am when he rammed his car into a bike near Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, killing two riders.
{{/usCountry}}The prosecution said the 17-year-old was returning from a late-night party with his friends under the alleged influence of alcohol around 2am when he rammed his car into a bike near Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, killing two riders.
{{/usCountry}}Agarwal responded to the bench’s February 2 observations and said that the parents were not at fault, as the boy was with the driver who was driving the car. “In terms of the usual instructions, the driver was to drive the car and transport the children. Contrary to perception, the petitioner and his wife did not hand over a car to the minor,” he said.
Rohatgi said sometimes children take the wheel. He added his client did not know his son had convinced the driver to take his seat.
The state government earlier opposed the bail to the three accused and filed an affidavit saying that the case has revealed a “disturbing pattern of criminal conduct” as the family of the main accused is known to resort to “influence, money, power and unlawful means”. It argued that 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 affidavit said.
The high court denied the accused bail, calling the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused would tamper with the evidence well-founded.