Pune Porche Case: Bombay HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Minor’s Father

Pune Porsche accident case

The Bombay High Court has recently denied anticipatory bail to the father of a minor implicated in the Pune Porsche accident case, which resulted in the deaths of two bikers in May.

The court found sufficient evidence suggesting the father’s involvement in allegedly tampering with his son’s blood sample, who is also accused in the incident.

Justice Manish Pitale presided over the case involving Arunkumar Singh, whose son was reportedly seated in the rear of the Porsche, allegedly under the influence of alcohol. The driver, also a minor, was said to have been drunk when the vehicle collided with the motorcycle.

Singh faced allegations of conspiring with hospital staff to swap his son’s blood sample with that of co-accused Ashish Mittal, intending to ensure that the sample tested negative for alcohol. Investigators indicated that Singh absconded once police became aware of the blood sample switch.

Singh’s counsel argued that the charges under Sections 464 (making false documents) and 467 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were unfounded in this context. However, Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray contended that the sample exchange rendered the Alcohol Examination Certificate a fraudulent document, asserting that Singh’s role was integral to the alleged forgery.

Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Singh, claimed that a blood sample cannot be classified as a document and contested the notion of deception in the case. In response, Prosecutor Hiray emphasized the necessity of Singh’s custody to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy, including potential bribery involved with medical personnel.

The bench highlighted that the blood sample exchange was orchestrated by Singh to facilitate his son’s escape from culpability. With other involved parties, including the doctors, already arrested, the court focused on Singh’s actions in the context of the charges against him.

Justice Pitale pointed out that Section 464 requires that deception be practiced to alter the nature of a document without the victim’s knowledge. The judge noted that deception was evident in labeling the blood sample of co-accused Mittal as that of Singh’s minor son.

“The applicant, being the father of the minor son, was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC to bring about such deception,” the judge remarked, stressing that the affixing of the incorrect label was central to the deceit, thus diminishing the defense’s argument regarding the classification of the blood sample.

The tragic incident occurred on May 19 at around 2:30 AM in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, when a minor, allegedly intoxicated, drove the Porsche into a two-wheeler, leading to the deaths of two software engineers.

As the case unfolds, it raises serious questions about accountability and the lengths individuals may go to evade justice.