Bombay High Court denies anticipatory bail to father of other minor present in Pune Porsche car during accident

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the father of the second minor in the Pune Porsche accident, who was sitting next to the prime suspect – a child in conflict with the law (CCL), who allegedly drove the car controlled. on May 19, 2024 at high speed and killed two youths after mowing them down.

Single judge Judge Manish Pitale noted that petitioner Arunkumar Singh had bribed the doctors of Sasoon Hospital, Pune soon after the accident to get his son’s blood samples replaced by another co-accused just to ensure that the medical reports did not indicate the presence of alcohol in his son’s blood samples. blood.

“An examination of the material unearthed during the investigation prima facie shows that the blood sample of the minor son of the applicant was replaced by the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. This happened at the insistence of the applicant. itself, to create a document that would ensure that the applicant’s minor son goes free,” Judge Pitale noted this.

The co-accused, i.e. the parents of the offending child, who was driving the Porsche car, also took identical action by replacing the blood sample of the said child with that of his mother, again in order to produce a document creating that would ensure that the said child also goes free, the judge further noted.

In his defense, Singh contended on merits that the provisions of Section 464 (making a false document by deception) will not apply to him. He submitted that it cannot be said that the Alcohol Examination Certificate (AEC) is a document prepared under ‘deception’ as the doctor and also the assistant chemical analyzer were party to the conspiracy to mix up the blood samples and that they were very aware of the blood samples. samples are exchanged.

Taking note of the allegation, Justice Pitale observed that there was deception here by labeling the blood sample in question as that of the minor son of the applicant when in reality it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal.

“The applicant, who is the father of the said minor son, was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC to effect such deception by affixing a label to show that it blood sample which belonged to the minor son while it was being collected. the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. It is the said label on the blood sample that formed the basis for deception, read together with the documents prepared in conspiracy with co-accused Dr. Halnor. Hence the claim on behalf of the applicant that the blood sample is not a ‘document’ pales into insignificance,” the bench noted.

It is because of this deception practiced by the assistant chemical analyzer that he had no knowledge of the nature of the alteration, which led to the said alcohol examination certificate being signed, sealed and executed, the judge added.

“Viewed from this perspective, the contention raised on behalf of the State that the applicant was substantially part of the conspiracy in committing the offense under Section 464 of the IPC remains valid. A prima facie strong case has been made against the applicant. for an offense committed under Section 467 of the IPC read with Section 464 thereof. The said document clearly meets the definition of ‘valuable security’ under Section 30 of the IPC as it certainly created a right in the accused minor son of the applicant to portray. innocence,” held the bank.

The court pointed out that the main contention of the prosecution is that all the occupants of the Porsche car, including the applicant’s son and the others, including the child who was driving the car in violation of the law, were in an intoxicated state and that the car in that situation was robbed. drove at such a high speed that he hit the motorcycle the victims were riding from behind, killing them.

“There is merit in the contention of the Special Public Prosecutor that the remaining applicant has created an impediment to the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate the case, including the angle of conspiracy and its constituent elements, entered into by the applicant with the co-accused , including the doctors who were bribed to replace the blood samples,” the bench noted while refusing anticipatory bail to Singh.

Appearance:

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda appeared for the applicant along with advocates Abid Mulani, Ashish Agarkar, Harshada Panphani and Chinmay Patil.

Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray along with advocate Sanjay Kokane and additional public prosecutor Sagar Agarkar represented the state.

Case Title: Arunkumar Devnath Singh vs. State of Maharashtra (anticipatory bail application 2564 of 2024)

Click here to read/download the judgment