Pune Porsche Crash | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Father Of Minor Driver In Blood Sample Swapping Case

The Supreme Court today granted bail to 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 held, "We have considered the arguments in light of the material on record as well as the fact that in similar cases this court has already granted the relief. We also note that the appellant herein has been in jail for the last 22 months. The appellant has made out a case for bail. Bail granted subject to terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court."The Court also prohibited Agarwal from contacting any of the witnesses in the case. It further directed the trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest."The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses either directly or indirectly. Any violation of the conditions shall entitle the state to seek cancellation of the bail. We also direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest", the Court stated.During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna remarked that Agarwal's alleged actions reflect the mindset of Indians wanting to get the better of the law, but questioned whether his liberty could be curtailed before conviction. "All this is reflection of the mindset of the Indian society. That everybody wants to get out and to get the better of the law. Now the question is, if this is a mindset of the Indian society whether a man has to lose his liberty until he is convicted?"During the hearing, the State opposed the plea and argued that the principle of parity with other accused who have secured bail would not apply to the petitioner. State counsel submitted that the other accused had sought bail on the ground that their children were the accused in the case, whereas the minor driver involved in the accident was the petitioner's own son. According to the prosecution, the petitioner arranged ₹5 lakh through his wife to bribe officials to manipulate blood samples and secure a favourable medical report. The State also argued that the delay in the trial could not be attributed to the prosecution. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the minor was driving the car but a driver had also been provided and was present in the vehicle. “He was driving but I had provided a driver who was also in the car. Beyond that what more can I do?” Rohatgi submitted. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the father of one of the victims, opposed the grant of bail and argued that the case involved a conspiracy to subvert the justice system after the accident. “Thousands of road accidents happen in this country every day. Many involve intoxicated drivers and minors. This case is not about the accident and death of my child. It is about subversion of justice. Immediately after the incident, there are series of phone calls made by this man as a ring leader of a conspiracy,” he submitted. He referred to the driver's statement and said, “The driver says 'he coerced me to take the onus on myself.' I am hoping it is different from just mere drunk driving incident if you are defrauding the Judiciary and thereby the victims.” Justice Nagarathna responded that the prosecution must secure conviction through the trial process. Sankaranarayanan argued that witnesses had stated that they were used in the alleged conspiracy and said the petitioner had influenced other families involved in the case. Justice Nagarathna, however, questioned whether bail could be denied only to send a message to society. “All this is reflection of the mindset of the Indian society. That everybody wants to get out and to get the better of the law. Now the question is, if this is a mindset of the Indian society whether a man has to lose his liberty until he is convicted?” she asked. Sankaranarayanan emphasised that a strong message must be sent. However, Justice Nagarathna responded, “That is not at the cost of a man losing his liberty.” When Sankaranarayanan argued that those with deep pockets should not believe they can corrupt institutions and still secure bail, Justice Nagarathna said that courts cannot deny bail in every case merely because the trial court and the High Court had rejected it. “These are all symptoms of the problems which are there in the society. But when they come to the Supreme Court we can't say trial court has denied High Court has denied we will also deny,” she said. Justice Nagarathna also questioned the role of educational institutions in instilling constitutional values. “What are our educational institutions doing? If this is what everybody thinks the citizenship values of the Constitution, how to face the law and being...

Pune Porsche Crash | Supreme Court Grants Bail To Father Of Minor Driver In Blood Sample Swapping Case

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags