Pune Porsche Car Crash Case — Supreme Court Issues Notice on Bail Pleas of Two Accused

Case Background — May 19, 2024 Crash at Kalyani Nagar

The case arises from the May 19, 2024 incident in Pune, where a Porsche car allegedly driven by a 17-year-old under the influence of alcohol rammed into a motorcycle near Kalyani Nagar on Airport Road shortly after 2 a.m., resulting in the death of two bike riders — Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. The accused juveniles were returning from a late-night party along with friends when the fatal crash occurred.

The incident triggered widespread public outcry due to allegations of attempts to shield the juveniles and manipulate forensic evidence.


Supreme Court Proceedings — Notice Issued on Bail Pleas

The Supreme Court bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the State of Maharashtra on the bail petitions filed by two of the accused after the Bombay High Court rejected their bail pleas on December 16.

The Court directed the matter to be listed for hearing on January 30, while calling for the State’s response. The petitions challenge the High Court’s refusal to release the accused persons who are alleged to have participated in a conspiracy to shield the juveniles involved in the crash.


Allegations of Evidence Tampering and Conspiracy

One of the accused is the father of a juvenile involved in the incident, and he is alleged to have facilitated the swapping of his son’s blood sample to suppress evidence of alcohol consumption.

The second accused is alleged to have joined the conspiracy by allowing his own blood sample to be substituted with that of another juvenile from the vehicle while at Sassoon Hospital.

According to the prosecution, these actions were undertaken to prevent the juveniles from facing legal consequences arising from the fatal crash.


Arguments Presented on Behalf of the Accused

Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar appeared for the second accused and submitted that the accused has been in custody since August 19, 2024 and is a cardiac patient who has suffered two cardiac incidents since October 2025.

It was further argued that the investigation is complete, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed in November 2024, and no further custodial interrogation is required. The accused also contended that he does not know the juvenile accused or his father, and the allegation against him merely concerns “shielding a person from legal consequences” for an offence yet to be proved.

The first accused challenged the allegation of shielding his son, stating that the son has been cited as a prosecution witness and not an offender in the present case.


Victims’ Representation and Participation in Proceedings

The victims, represented by Advocate Manan Verma, opposed the grant of bail and sought to be heard in the proceedings. The Supreme Court permitted the victims to file an application to be impleaded, thereby recognising their right to be heard in criminal proceedings affecting their interests.


Bombay High Court Order — Grounds for Rejecting Bail

The Bombay High Court, while refusing bail to the accused, observed that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding possible tampering of witnesses and evidence appeared well-founded.

The Court further noted that key prosecution witnesses were vulnerable to pressure or influence, which could potentially result in them turning hostile and undermining the prosecution’s case.


Statutory Framework — Offences and Procedural Context

The allegations in this case are linked to possible violations under the Indian Penal Code and allied statutes, including:

  • Section 120-B IPC — Criminal Conspiracy

  • Section 201 IPC — Causing disappearance of evidence / giving false information

  • Sections 465, 468, 471 IPC — Forgery and use of forged documents

  • Section 304A IPC — Causing death by negligence (linked to underlying crash investigation)

With respect to bail, the relevant procedural provisions include:

  • Section 437 CrPC — Bail in non-bailable offences by Magistrate

  • Section 439 CrPC — Special powers of High Court / Sessions Court to grant bail

  • Section 173(8) CrPC — Supplementary charge-sheet and continuation of investigation

Given the involvement of juveniles:

  • Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — particularly provisions relating to “children in conflict with law,” assessment, and procedural safeguards.

The alleged swapping of blood samples directly implicates forensic integrity and evidentiary chain-of-custody norms under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.


Constitutional Principles — Bail, Fair Trial, and Due Process

The case engages significant constitutional considerations under:

  • Article 21 — Right to life and personal liberty

    • Includes the right to a fair trial and the right of victims to justice

  • Article 14 — Equality before law and non-arbitrariness

  • Article 39A — Equal access to justice

Courts routinely balance:

  • the liberty of the accused

  • the interests of victims

  • the need to preserve integrity of trial proceedings.


Key Judicial Precedents on Bail and Witness Protection

Several landmark Supreme Court rulings guide bail discretion in serious offences involving evidence tampering risks:

  • State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) — Listed factors such as likelihood of tampering, witness intimidation, and gravity of offence as key considerations in bail decisions.

  • Gudur Kishan Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) — Courts must consider broader societal interests where allegations concern obstruction of justice.

  • Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2011) — Bail is the rule and jail the exception, but courts may deny bail where fair trial may be jeopardised.

  • P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) — Bail should not be granted where there is a reasonable possibility of evidence manipulation.

The High Court’s emphasis on vulnerability of prosecution witnesses aligns with these precedents.


Victims’ Right to be Heard — Emerging Jurisprudence

Recent jurisprudence has expanded the participatory rights of victims in criminal proceedings through:

  • Proviso to Section 372 CrPC — Right to appeal against acquittal or inadequate punishment

  • Recognition of impleadment in appropriate cases affecting victims’ rights

The Supreme Court’s permission to allow victims to apply for impleadment reinforces this evolving rights-based approach.


Conclusion — Bail Decision Hinges on Risk of Interference with Justice

The Pune Porsche crash case represents a complex intersection of:

  • juvenile justice considerations

  • allegations of tampering with forensic evidence

  • conspiracy to obstruct legal accountability

  • competing claims of personal liberty and trial integrity.

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice signals judicial scrutiny over whether continued custody is justified on grounds of:

  • protection of witnesses

  • preservation of evidence

  • credibility of the prosecution case.

The upcoming hearing will determine whether the accused can be released on bail or whether the risk of interference with the administration of justice warrants continued detention.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores