Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Another Minor Who Was Present In The Pune Porsche Car During Accident

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the father of the second minor in the Pune Porsche accident, who was sitting next to the main accused - a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), who allegedly was driving the car on May 19, 2024 in a high speed and killed two youth after mowing them down.Single-judge Justice Manish Pitale noted that the applicant Arunkumar Singh had bribed the doctors at the Sasoon Hospital in Pune just after the accident to get his son's blood samples changed with another co-accused, only to ensure that the medical reports do not indicate presence of any alcohol in his son's blood."A perusal of the material that has come on record during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that blood sample of the minor son of the applicant was replaced with the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. This was at the behest of the applicant himself, in order to create a document that would ensure that the minor son of the applicant goes scot free," Justice Pitale noted.The co-accused persons i.e. the parents of the child in conflict with law, who was driving the Porsche car, also undertook identical action by replacing the blood sample of the said child with that of his mother, again in order to create a document that would ensure that the said child also goes scot free, the judge noted further.In his defence, Singh argued on merits that the provisions of section 464 (making false document by deception) will not apply to him. He contended that Alcohol Examination Certificate (AEC) cannot be said to be a document prepared under 'deception' as the Doctor and also the Assistant Chemical Analyser were party to the conspiracy of changing the blood samples and that they were very much aware of the blood samples being exchanged. Taking note of the contention, Justice Pitale noted that the deception here was practised by labelling the subject blood sample as that of the minor son of the applicant, while in reality it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. "The applicant, being the father of the said minor son, was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC to bring about such deception by affixing of label to show the blood sample to be that of the minor son while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. It is the said label affixed on the blood sample that was the basis of deception, read with the documents created in conspiracy with co-accused Dr. Halnor. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that blood sample is not a 'document' pales into insignificance," the bench noted.It is due to this deception practised on the Assistant Chemical Analyzer that he had no knowledge of the nature of alteration, resulting in the said Alcohol Examination Certificate, being signed, sealed and executed, the judge added. "Viewed from this angle, the contention raised on behalf of the State that the applicant was very much part of the conspiracy in committing the offence under Section 464 of the IPC, holds good. There is a strong prima facie case made out against the applicant for offence committed under Section 467 of the IPC read with Section 464 thereof. The said document clearly answers the definition of 'valuable security' under Section 30 of the IPC, as it certainly created a right in the accused minor son of the applicant of portraying innocence," the bench held.The bench pointed out that the main contention of the prosecution is that all the occupants of the Porsche car, including the applicant's son and the others including the child in conflict with law driving the car were in a drunken state and in that situation the car was driven in such a high speed that it hit the motorcycle from behind on which the victims were riding, causing their death. "There is substance in the contention raised by the Special Public Prosecutor that the applicant remaining absconding has created an impediment for the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate into the matter, including the angle of conspiracy and the constituents thereof, hatched by the applicant with the co-accused persons, including the doctors who were bribed for replacing the blood samples," the bench observed, while denying anticipatory bail to Singh.Appearance:Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda along with Advocates Abid Mulani, Ashish Agarkar, Harshada Panphani and Chinmay Patil appeared for the Applicant.Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray along with Advocate Sanjay Kokane and Additional Public Prosecutor Sagar Agarkar represented the State. Case Title: Arunkumar Devnath Singh vs State of Maharashtra (Anticipatory Bail Application 2564 of 2024)Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Father Of Another Minor Who Was Present In The Pune Porsche Car During Accident

Narsi Benwal

Tags