The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on the bail plea filed by Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal, father of the minor accused in the fatal Porsche crash in Pune on May 19, 2024, which claimed two lives.
A Bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan posted the matter for further hearing on March 3, 2026. The Court declined to grant interim bail to Agarwal at this stage.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Agarwal, submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody for nearly 21 months and sought interim relief. The Bench, however, was not inclined to grant such relief.
Background of the Case
The bail plea challenges the December 16, 2025 judgment of the Bombay High Court, which rejected bail applications filed by Agarwal and several co-accused in connection with an FIR registered at Yerwada Police Station, Pune.
According to the prosecution, the minor was driving a Porsche car near Kalyani Nagar on Airport Road at around 2:10 a.m. on May 19, 2024. The vehicle rammed a motorcycle from behind. The rider and pillion rider, Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, suffered fatal injuries.
The police initially registered the FIR under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Investigators later added Section 304 IPC and other offences as the probe progressed.
Allegations of Conspiracy and Evidence Tampering
The prosecution alleges that soon after the accident, the accused orchestrated a criminal conspiracy to make crucial evidence disappear and to secure a “nil alcohol” report in favour of the minor and other occupants.
Investigators allege that blood samples of the minor and others were swapped with those of Shivani Agarwal, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood at Sassoon Hospital, Pune. They further allege that the accused falsified medical records to support fabricated test results.
Based on these allegations, the police invoked offences under Sections 304, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 109 read with Section 34 IPC. They also added charges under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
High Court Findings
While rejecting bail, the Bombay High Court held that Agarwal could not be held responsible for causing the accident, as it occurred without his knowledge.
However, the Court recorded a strong prima facie finding that Agarwal and other accused conspired to tamper with prosecution evidence. The Court noted that the accused allegedly falsified medical records and forged documents to shield the minor from the rigours of Section 304 IPC.
The High Court also observed that the financial influence of certain accused and the vulnerability of witnesses created a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering. On this basis, the Court refused bail.
Developments Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently granted bail to Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad, noting that they had already undergone around 18 months of incarceration.
The prosecution alleges that these accused swapped their blood samples with those of the two minor occupants seated in the rear of the car. Authorities booked them for offences relating to forgery, evidence tampering and bribery under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
While granting bail, Justice Nagarathna made strong oral observations highlighting the responsibility of parents in such cases.
Case Title: Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra
