The Supreme Court granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, father of the juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche crash, noting he spent 22 months in custody and co-accused were already released, while observing he made out a case for bail.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Vishal Agarwal, the father of the juvenile accused in the Pune Porsche crash that killed two young software engineers.
Agarwal is accused of conspiring to tamper with evidence after the accident, specifically by allegedly substituting the minor’s blood sample to conceal alcohol consumption.
A Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that several co-accused in related proceedings had already been released on bail and that Agarwal had spent about 22 months in custody.
The Court said,
“In these circumstances, the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail,”
The Bench ordered Agarwal’s release on bail subject to conditions.
The Court directed,
“The appellant shall cooperate with the investigation and the trial and shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact the witnesses either directly or indirectly. Any infraction of these conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the concerned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest,”
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna commented on what she described as a prevailing mindset in society in such matters.
Justice Nagarathna observed,
“Whatever you are saying is a reflection of the mindset of Indian society. This is how everything happens; otherwise why would we have so many such matters? Everyone wants to get the better of the law instead of facing the law. All of this happens because of the prevailing mindset in society,”
However, the Bench stressed that such societal concerns cannot justify curtailing personal liberty before conviction.
Read Also: [Pune Porsche Crash] Police Arrested Teen’s Mother Over “Tempering with Evidence”
This remark followed Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan’s submission, on behalf of one victim’s father, that a strong message should be sent so people learn to respect the law.
Justice Nagarathna responded,
“Not at the cost of a person losing his liberty.”
The Supreme Court was hearing Agarwal’s challenge to the Bombay High Court’s refusal to grant bail.
The FIR arose from a fatal collision in the early hours of May 19, 2024, when a Porsche allegedly driven by a juvenile under the influence struck a motorcycle in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, killing 24-year-old software engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both from Madhya Pradesh.
Prosecution allegations assert that Agarwal, his wife and associates conspired with hospital doctors to manipulate blood test results for the juvenile and his companions so they would not show alcohol. The chargesheet names Agarwal under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 213 and 214 (offences relating to screening an offender), and Sections 466, 467, 468 and 471 (forgery and use of forged documents), among others.
Sessions Court and the Bombay High Court had both rejected his bail applications, prompting Agarwal to approach the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for Agarwal, argued the petition was confined to the father’s bail and noted that other accused had already received bail.
Rohatgi submitted.
“This is the father’s bail plea. Everyone else has already been granted bail. The child was driving, but I had provided a driver. Beyond that what can the father do?”
The State’s Standing Counsel opposed release, stressing the gravity of the allegations and arguing that Agarwal could not claim parity with co-accused. The prosecution contended that Agarwal, as the minor’s father, had not only sought to suppress evidence but allegedly substituted blood samples.
Sankaranarayanan argued the matter transcends a typical road accident.
He submitted.
“Thousands of road accidents occur in this country, but this case is not about the accident itself. This man goes and substitutes the blood sample. He bribes the doctors. The driver says he was coerced to take the blame. This is a serious case involving bribery and corruption. You are defrauding the judiciary,”
Read Also: [Pune Porsche Crash] Minor’s Remand, Parents’ Custody Extended Until June 12th
Responding to the severity of the allegations, Justice Nagarathna reiterated that bail jurisprudence is ultimately anchored in the protection of personal liberty.
She remarked,
“It should not be at the cost of a man losing his liberty. What are our educational institutions doing? Being straightforward is not taught to our children,”
She also observed a wider problem of repeated bail denials leading to multiple appeals.
Justice Nagarathna said,
“In every case, we start denying bail. Why are people coming to the Supreme Court for bail? These are all symptoms in society where the trial court denies bail, the High Court denies bail, and then they come here,”
Sankaranarayanan countered that the Supreme Court has also denied bail in many matters.
He argued,
“In some WhatsApp message cases, the Court has denied bail. This case is 50 times more serious. This is not just about a car accident. A strong message needs to be sent that deep pockets will not get you bail,”
After hearing brief submissions, the Bench granted bail to Agarwal and directed the trial court to expedite the trial.
Advocates Shakti Pandey and Prashant Patil appeared for the petitioner.
Case Title: Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE