The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, whose son is a co-accused in a tragic accident in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar.
The incident, which occurred on May 19, 2024, involved a high-speed car driven by a minor, resulting in the deaths of two young men.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld an October 23 order from the Bombay High Court that dismissed Singh’s anticipatory bail application.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija argued that Singh faced “prejudice” due to extensive media coverage of the case. Justice Dhulia acknowledged this issue but noted, “It happens,” while Justice Amanullah emphasized that the court does not consider media narratives in its judgments.
When Justice Dhulia inquired about Singh’s relationship to the driver, Makhija clarified, “No, I am the father of the friend who was sitting in the back seat. He had nothing to do with the incident; they were only partying together.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Singh, referenced a specific paragraph from the bail order, which stated that the applicant failed to establish a case warranting the court’s discretion for granting anticipatory bail.
The order also noted that the ingredients of the offenses were prima facie made out against Singh.
Luthra contended that, even under the worst-case scenario, only Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (which pertains to the disappearance of evidence) would apply, and that Sections 464 and others were not relevant.
Makhija further requested the court to clarify that the observations in the bail order were solely for the purpose of the bail application. She expressed concern that such remarks could adversely affect Singh during the trial.
However, the court declined to make any changes, stating that these issues were matters for the trial court to resolve.
Justice Dhulia remarked, “You may have an unshakeable case in the trial.” Despite Luthra’s request to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, the court dismissed the application.
This decision underscores the court’s stance on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, emphasizing that the trial would ultimately determine the merits of the case against Singh.
