The Bombay High Court dismissed a batch of bail applications filed by several accused persons, including businessmen, doctors and alleged intermediaries, in connection with the Pune Porsche crash case involving the deaths of two persons. Justice Shyam C. Chandak held that a strong prima facie case exists showing a well-planned criminal conspiracy to tamper with and fabricate crucial medical and forensic evidence to shield the minor driver from criminal liability.
The case arises from a fatal accident in May 2024, in which a Porsche car allegedly driven by a minor under the influence of alcohol rammed a motorcycle, killing both occupants. The prosecution alleged that immediately after the accident, the accused conspired to swap blood samples, issue false medical certificates, make fabricated entries in hospital records, and affix misleading labels to samples, all for illegal gratification. Forensic Science Laboratory and DNA reports later revealed manipulation of samples, leading to the addition of serious offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Refusing bail, the Court held that falsification of medical certificates, MLC entries and blood sample labels amounted to forgery of “valuable security” under Section 467 IPC, as such acts destroyed the prosecution’s legal right to establish intoxication and could mislead courts and frustrate claims of victims’ families. The Court noted that the offence carries punishment up to life imprisonment and strikes at the core of the criminal justice system.
While acknowledging that “bail is the rule and jail the exception,” the Court emphasised that bail decisions are fact-specific. Given the gravity of the allegations, the severity of punishment, the financial influence of the accused, and the real apprehension of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, the Court held that this was not a fit case for grant of bail.
The High Court also rejected arguments relating to alleged procedural lapses in communicating grounds of arrest, observing that such issues could not override the victims’ right to justice in a case involving deliberate destruction of evidence and abuse of public medical institutions.
Appearances:
Mr. Abid Mulani a/w. Mr. Ashish P. Agarkar, Mr. Raj Mulani, Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Mr. Adesh Agarkar, Mr. Mandar Shinde and Ms. Shraddha Kulkarni for the Applicant in BA/2470/2025 and BA/2482/2025.
Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay and Ms. Dhvani Shah for the Applicant in BA/2850/2025.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant Patil, Mr. Swapnil Ambure, Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Ms. Nida Khan and Mr. Gagandeep Singh for the Applicant in BA/2733/2025.
Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Ranjit Ade, Mr. Rajendra Nemane, Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Anant Charkhe and Mr. Nilesh Rathod for the Applicant in BA/3751/2024.
Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Keral Mehta and Mr. Yash Naik i/b.
Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Applicant in BA/3809/2024.
Mr. Jaydeep Mane (through VC) a/w. Ms. Ishan Paradkar, Mr. Yash Fadtare and Mr. Malhar Kadam for the Applicant in BA/5173/2024.
Mr. Shishir Hiray, Special PP a/w. Mr. Shubham Joshi, Mr. Sanjay Kokane, Mr. Tanveer Khan and Ms. Supriya Kak, APPs for the Respondent – State.
Mr. Ankit Patil a/w. Mr. Yash Shrivas and Ms. Iraa Dube Patil i/b. Jay and Co. for the Intervenor in BA/2850/2025, BA/2733/2025, BA/3751/2024 and BA/3809/2024.
Mr. Vijay Kumbhar, ACP (Crime) and Mr. Santosh Dolas, ASI, present.
