Bombay High Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Eight Accused In Pune Porsche Car Hit-And-Run Case

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected the bail applications of 8 accused named in the Pune Porsche hit and run case, wherein two persons were killed in the tragic accident.

Single-judge Justice Shyam Chandak dismissed the bail applications of eight accused including the father of the prime accused, a juvenile, who was driving the car at the time of the incident.

"There is a strong prima facie case against the Applicants of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to create false evidence with the help of false documents in the nature of Medial Certificate of the child in conflict with law (CCL) and his friends that they were not under the influence of alcohol, false entries in MLC register to that effect and applying labels on the relevant blood samples but carrying false information about the person to whom the said blood samples was related. This the Applicants/accused persons did for the purpose of giving and accepting the bribe amount and to save the CCL from punishment of the offence of Section 304 IPC," the judge said in the order.

The court has dismissed the bail applications of Vishal Agarwal, Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood, Arunkumar Singh, Ashpak Makandar, Amar Gaikwad, Dr Ajay Taware and Dr Shrihari Halnor.

The applicants argued that they did not do the accident and that there was no strong incriminating material agains them. They also contended that the police breached. their rights under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India as they failed to furnish the grounds of their arrest in written form.

Appearing for State, special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray had argued that the accused fabricated the very vital evidence in the case which was blood samples of the minor accused. He further highlighted the fact the witnesses in the case are medical students, poor persons etc and can be easily threatened.

While Vishal is the father of the prime minor accused, Dr Taware and Halnor are booked for replacing the blood samples of the prime accused and the other minor accused who was sitting on the passenger seat at the time of the accident.

Taware is the head of the Forensic Medicine Department and Halnor is the Chief Medical Officer.

Makandar and Gaikwad are the middlemen, who connected Vishal with Taware and Halnor for swapping the blood samples.

Both Mittal and Sood are booked for giving their own blood samples for replacing it with that of the two minor accused. Singh is the one who had asked Sood and Mittal to give their blood samples.

In his order, Justice Chandak highlighted the fact that it is only the evidence in the case which helps a Court of law to do justice to the parties in the case and that the object of police investigation in a crime is to collect evidence on behalf of and in the trust for the State, with an avowed object of producing it before Court of law to get justice to the victim of crime.

"Yet, in the case in hand, the Applicants jointly tried eroding that very way of the justice to be done to the two innocent, who died in the accident at very young age. As such, the offence is serious," the judge said. 

As regards the various lapses in the investigation at the hands of the police, Justice Chandak pointed out that it is always the discretion of the court to either grant or deny bail in a given case.

"Like the accused in this crime, the victims, who died in the accident, were equal before the law and entitled for equal protection of the laws in view of Article 14 of the Constitution. In my considered view, safeguarding the justice to be done to the victims of the crime/their families is one of the facets of Article 14. Therefore, if there are some mistakes or intentional/accidental procedural lapse on the part of the police, who investigated into the crime, the same cannot be allowed to control the very discretion of the Court as to the bail relief. Otherwise, it would cause a serious dent to the principle enshrined in the Constitution that 'everyone is equal before the laws', which is also available to the victim of crime. Therefore, in cases like the one in hand, the victims cannot be made to suffer for the mistakes or lapse on the part of the police," the judge held.

Rejecting the argument of the accused about violation of their fundamental rights under Article 22(1), Justice Chandak said, "The Applicants and their co-accused were not only duty bound but also aware that they should support the police for proper investigation for collection of the evidence. Yet, they all including Dr. Halnor, Dr. Taware and Atul Ghatkambale became ready to tamper with and cause disappearance of the evidence for money. While doing so, all the Applicants were aware as to what they were doing is illegal and the serious consequences of the said act. As such, the Applicants are duty bound to explain as to what demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend has been caused to them on account of not informing in writing the grounds of their arrest prior to the arrest. However, no such prejudice is pointed out from the record."

With these observations, the judge dismissed the bail applications. 

Case Title: Aditya Avinash Sood vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application 2470 of 2025)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment