Top News

SupremeCourt – The Supreme Court on Monday approved bail for three individuals accused of playing a role in the alleged manipulation of blood samples linked to the high-profile Pune Porsche crash that claimed two lives in May 2024. The decision comes after the court took note of the extended period the accused have already spent in custody while the trial remains ongoing.

Bail Decision Based on Length of Custody

Granting relief, the apex court observed that Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal, and Santosh Gaikwad had been incarcerated for nearly 18 months without the case reaching a decisive stage. Considering this prolonged detention, the bench ruled that continued custody was not justified at this point, according to legal reporting platform LiveLaw.

The court clarified that the bail order does not comment on the merits of the allegations and that the trial process will continue independently.

Roles Allegedly Played by the Accused

Investigators have alleged that the three men were involved at different levels in an effort to interfere with forensic evidence following the crash. Ashish Mittal, a Pune-based businessman, is said to have close personal ties with the father of the primary accused. Aditya Sood is the father of one of the teenagers who was seated in the back of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Santosh Gaikwad allegedly acted as an intermediary and is accused of receiving ₹3 lakh for facilitating the blood sample manipulation.

Prosecutors claim the accused coordinated with others to ensure that toxicology reports would not reflect alcohol consumption by those inside the car.

Deadly Crash That Sparked National Anger

The case traces back to the night of May 19, 2024, when a speeding Porsche, reportedly without a registration plate, struck a two-wheeler in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar area. The impact killed Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Costa, both young software professionals, as they were returning home after dinner.

Police investigations indicated that a 17-year-old boy was behind the wheel at the time of the collision. Two other minors and a driver were also present in the vehicle. Authorities later stated that the teenager had consumed alcohol at two separate hotels before driving.

Controversial Handling of the Juvenile Case

Public outrage intensified not only because of the fatal crash but also due to the early handling of the juvenile driver’s case. Shortly after being detained, the minor was granted bail by a Juvenile Justice Board member. Among the conditions imposed was the writing of a 300-word essay on road safety, a decision that drew sharp criticism across the country.

Following a police review application, the Juvenile Justice Board later ordered that the minor be sent to an observation home. He was subsequently released after directions from the Bombay High Court.

Allegations of Evidence Manipulation at Hospital

As the investigation deepened, police claimed that the blood sample taken from the juvenile driver had been deliberately replaced to hide alcohol intake. According to investigators, medical staff at Sassoon Hospital allegedly discarded the original sample and substituted it with blood drawn from the teenager’s mother.

The alleged operation is said to have involved the juvenile’s father, businessman Vishal Agarwal, his wife, and several associates. Prosecutors maintain that hospital staff were paid through intermediaries and that senior medical officers played a role in ensuring reports showed no trace of alcohol.

Expansion of the Investigation and Earlier Bail Denial

The scope of the case widened with the arrests of Mittal and Sood. Authorities allege that Mittal provided his own blood sample to replace that of another minor who had been inside the car, while Sood allegedly did the same for his son, who was not named in the initial police complaint.

In December last year, the Bombay High Court had refused bail to the accused, citing concerns that individuals with financial influence could interfere with witnesses or obstruct the judicial process.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

Despite those earlier concerns, the Supreme Court emphasized that the primary factor behind granting bail was the length of incarceration already undergone by the three accused. The court noted that appropriate conditions would apply to prevent any misuse of liberty while the trial proceeds.

The ruling marks a significant development in a case that continues to draw public attention due to its serious allegations and broader questions around accountability and justice.