Pune Porsche crash case: Supreme Court grants bail to 3 accused in May 2024 fatal accident

THE Supreme Court of India on Monday granted bail to three individuals accused of assisting in the alleged tampering of blood samples following the high-profile Pune Porsche crash of May 2024, which claimed the lives of two young software engineers.

A Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the release on bail of Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal and Santosh Gaikwad, noting that all three had already spent 18 months in custody.

Court Weighs Length of Detention Against Allegations

In its order, the Supreme Court observed that continued incarceration would cause undue prejudice to the accused, particularly given the nature of the allegations and the maximum punishment prescribed for the principal offence.

“Since there is no allegation against the juvenile in the backseat of the car, it is unlikely that there can be an allegation against them. Since allegations were made, they have been in jail for 18 months. It was submitted that even as against the driver who caused the accident, the punishment is three years. The juvenile is also being tried before the Juvenile Justice Board.

Thus, their continued incarceration will greatly prejudice and thus it was contended that bail be granted to the three appellants. Petitions allowed. Let them be produced before the concerned trial court. Let them be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed by the trial court,” Bar and Bench quoted the Supreme Court judges.

The Court added a clear caveat: “Any infraction of conditions shall lead to cancellation of bail granted.”

Background: Pune Porsche Crash That Shocked the City

The case arises from a fatal accident that occurred around 2.30 am on May 19, 2024, in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar area. A Porsche car, allegedly driven by a juvenile under the influence of alcohol, rammed into a motorcycle, killing 24-year-old software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both from Madhya Pradesh.

According to the prosecution, the juvenile’s father, businessman Vishal Agarwal, his wife, and other associates conspired with doctors at Sassoon Hospital to manipulate blood test results to show no traces of alcohol. It is alleged that ₹3 lakh was routed through intermediaries to hospital staff, with senior medical officers accused of coordinating the tampering.

Roles Attributed to the Accused

Santosh Gaikwad is alleged to have acted as a middleman and to have received ₹3 lakh for facilitating the manipulation of blood samples. Ashish Mittal, a Pune-based businessman and a friend of the juvenile’s father, is accused of providing his own blood sample to replace that of another juvenile present in the car.

Aditya Sood, also a businessman, is the father of the boy who was seated in the rear of the vehicle. The prosecution alleged that he similarly provided a blood sample on behalf of his son, who was neither driving the car nor named as an accused in the original FIR.

High Court’s Earlier Refusal of Bail

In December last year, the Bombay High Court had rejected bail pleas filed by the accused, expressing concern that releasing financially influential individuals could lead to witness tampering and obstruct the course of justice.

The High Court noted that several key witnesses — including drivers, hospital staff and domestic employees — were dependent on some of the accused, making the risk of interference with evidence “well-founded”.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the accused contended that their continued detention served no investigative purpose, as police had completed the probe and filed multiple charge sheets.

Mittal’s petition asserted that he was not present at the accident site, had no role in any conspiracy, and was at Sassoon Hospital only briefly. He also cited serious cardiac ailments, claiming he had suffered two cardiac emergencies while in custody, making continued detention medically unsafe and disproportionate.

Sood argued that he had been falsely implicated and that he merely complied with hospital instructions as the parent of a detained minor. His plea stressed that his son was a rear-seat passenger, not the driver, and is a prosecution witness rather than an accused person. He also denied any connection with alleged bribe payments.

Legal Representation

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Siddhartha Dave and Siddharth Agarwal appeared on behalf of the accused. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the father of one of the victims.

Mittal was also represented by advocate Anand Dilip Landge, while Sood was represented by advocates Shakti Pandey, Abid Mulani and Divya Anand.