Pune Porsche Case | Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bail Plea Of Father Of Minor Accused Of Driving
Amisha Shrivastava
26 Feb 2026 12:05 PM IST
The Supreme Court today issued notice on bail plea of Vishal Agarwal, father of the minor alleged to have been driving the Porsche car involved in the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune that led to the death of two persons. Vishal Agarwal is accused of hatching a conspiracy to swap blood samples and ensure that the occupants of the car get a Nil Alcohol report.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan kept the matter for hearing on March 3, 2026.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the petitioner submitted that he has been in custody for 21 months and sought interim bail. However, the Court refused to grant him interim bail today.
Background
The plea challenges the December 16, 2025 judgment of the Bombay High Court which rejected his bail application along with those of several co-accused arising out of the investigation registered at Yerwada Police Station, Pune.
According to the prosecution, at about 2.10 AM on May 19, 2024, the minor was driving a Porsche car near Kalyani Nagar on Airport Road when it rammed a motorcycle from behind. The rider and pillion - of Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta - rider sustained fatal injuries.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and later Section 304 IPC and other offences were added.
It is alleged that soon after the accident, a criminal conspiracy was hatched to cause disappearance of evidence and secure a “Nil alcohol” report in favour of the minor and his friends. The prosecution has alleged that blood samples of the minor and others were swapped with those of Shivani Agarwal, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood at Sassoon Hospital, and that false entries were made in medical records.
On this basis, offences under Sections 304, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC were invoked, along with Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The High Court observed that Vishal Agarwal cannot be said to be responsible for the accident itself, as it occurred behind his back and he was unaware of the circumstances in which the minor occupied the driving seat.
However, it held that there was a strong prima facie case that he, along with other accused, entered into a conspiracy to tamper with prosecution evidence by falsifying medical records and forging documents in order to shield the minor from the consequences of Section 304 of IPC. The Court also observed that given the financial position and influence of some of the accused and the vulnerability of witnesses, there was a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence, and it refused bail.
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to three co-accused - Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad - noting that they had undergone about 18 months of incarceration. They are alleged to have swapped the blood samples of two minor occupants seated in the back of the car with their own samples and are booked under provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act for forgery, evidence tampering and bribery.
Justice Nagarathna, while granting bail, made strong oral observations on parental responsibility.
Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 2932/2026
Case Title – Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra