Balancing personal liberty with justice, the Supreme Court granted bail in the Pune Porsche crash case involving the deaths of two software professionals, directing strict conditions, trial cooperation, and warning that any misuse would result in immediate cancellation of bail.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court balancing the personal liberty with the interests of justice granted bail to the accused persons in the Pune Porsche crash case which took the lives of two young software professionals.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan which directed that the appellants be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions, ensure their presence during proceedings, fully cooperate with the trial, and not misuse their liberty, warning that any violation would lead to cancellation of bail and directing their early production before the trial court.
The also noted that a conspiracy involving the appellants, the juvenile driver, and his parents was “clearly evident,”.
ALSO READ: Pune Porsche Crash Twist: Sacked Juvenile Justice Board Members Take Govt to Court
Factual Backgrounds
The case has drawn nationwide attention due to allegations of blood sample tampering, abuse of influence, and systemic failure, involving not just the juvenile driver but also parents, relatives, and alleged intermediaries.
The Pune Porsche crash involved a luxury car allegedly driven by a juvenile, resulting in the death of two IT professionals. While the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initiated proceedings only against the minor driver, the investigation later widened to include allegations that blood samples were swapped to conceal intoxication.
The prosecution alleges a larger conspiracy involving the juvenile’s father, relatives, friends, medical staff, police officials, and political influence, including alleged phone calls to a local MLA. The case raises grave concerns about whether money and influence can corrupt the criminal justice system.
Submissions of Parties:
- Submissions of Defence Counsel:
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Ashish Mittal, submitted:
“I am appearing for a friend of the accused’s father. The Juvenile Justice Board is prosecuting only the driver. My client is alleged to have provided a blood sample for the child who was sitting in the back seat.”
Justice Nagarathna interjected:
“So you have a blood sample for the alleged offender…”
To this, Mr. Dave responded:
“He is not an offender. Let me take the prosecution case to the highest level. The child is not being prosecuted now. I have been in custody for over a year.”
ALSO READ: [Pune Porsche Crash Case] Accused Minor’s Father Granted Bail
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for the father of one of the juveniles, argued:
“The blood samples—like mine—were taken in the presence of a police officer. This case falls under Section 201 at worst.”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan further submitted:
“There are no allegations against the two adults in the car; only the juvenile is accused.”
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the selective nature of prosecution, stating:
“The kids aren’t being prosecuted – it’s the uncles and parents who are in the line of fire.”
- Submissions of Prosecution and victim
Countering the defence, Senior Advocate Sankarnarayanan questioned:
“Whether money and influence can corrupt the criminal justice system in this case.”
He emphasised that:
“It’s not just a simple rash-driving incident but something deeper involving negligence and possible misuse of power.”
It was alleged that:
“The juvenile’s father asked them to help swap the blood sample to prove none were drunk,”
calling it:
“A classic case where the entire criminal justice system is undermined,”
with allegations involving:
“Phone calls and the local MLA.”
The prosecution strongly opposed bail, arguing that releasing the accused would allow them to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, thereby jeopardising the trial.
Court’s Observations:
Justice BV Nagarathna made strong remarks on parental responsibility and slammed the idea of minors drinking alcohol and then getting fancy cars.
The Bench observed that:
“The parents need to be held accountable because they couldn’t control the kids – the minors took the car keys.”
The Court took note of submissions that Amar Gaikwad allegedly received Rs 3 lakh to replace blood samples of the two juveniles seated in the back, while also recording that:
“Absent any allegation against the two juveniles in the back seat, it is unlikely the appellants attempted to swap their blood samples.”
Order of the Court:
After hearing all parties, the Court recorded that:
“Learned senior counsel appearing for the impleaded respondents also supported the learned counsel for the state, and contended that the conspiracy between these appellants and the perpetrator and the father and the parents of the perpetrator, the alleged juvenile driver who caused the accident, is clearly evident.”
However, balancing liberty with the interests of justice, the Supreme Court ordered:
“They shall be released on bail subject to such conditions as it may deem appropriate to enforce so as to ensure that the presence in the proceedings arising out of FIR also.”
The Court further directed:
“The appellants shall extend complete cooperation in the trial. The appellants shall not misuse their liberty in any manner. Any infraction of the conditions shall entail in cancellation of bail granted to the appellants once again.”
It was also ordered that:
“Let them be produced before the concerned trial court as early as possible.”
Case Title: ASHISH SATISH MITTAL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, SLP (Crl) No. 21370/2025 II-A,