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

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by the father of the second minor in the Pune Porsche accident, who was sitting next to the main accused, a child in conflict with the law (CCL), who he was allegedly driving the car. on May 19, 2024 at high speed and killed two youths after cutting them down.

single judge Justice Manish Pitale pointed out that the applicant Arunkumar Singh had bribed doctors at Pune’s Sasoon Hospital right after the accident to switch his son’s blood samples with another co-accused, just to ensure that the reports doctors did not indicate the presence of alcohol in their child. blood

“A perusal of the material which has come on record during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that the blood sample of the applicant’s minor son was substituted for the blood sample of the co-accused Ashish Mittal. This was in at the request of the applicant himself, in order to create a document that guarantees that the applicant’s minor child will be released.” Judge Pitale noted.

The co-accused, that is, the parents of the minor in conflict with the law, who was driving the Porsche car, also undertook an identical action by substituting the blood sample of the said minor for that of his mother, again in order to to create a document that will guarantee that said child will also be free, the judge pointed out.

In his defence, Singh argued on merits that the provisions of section 464 (making a false document by deception) will not apply to him. He submitted that the breathalyzer examination certificate (AEC) cannot be said to be a document prepared “fraudulently” as the doctor and also the attached chemical analyzer were part of the conspiracy to change the samples of blood and that they were very aware of blood. exchange of samples.

Taking note of the submission, Justice Pitale noted that deception was practiced here by labeling the subject’s blood sample as that of the applicant’s younger son, when in fact it was the blood sample of the co -accused Ashish Mittal.

“The applicant, being the father of the said minor child, was party to the conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC to cause such deception by affixing a tag to show that the blood sample was that of the minor son while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal It is the said tag placed on the blood sample which was the basis of the deception, read with the documents created in conspiracy with co-defendant Dr. Halnor the applicant that the blood sample is not a “document” is insignificant. pointed to the bench.

It is because of this deception practiced on the Deputy Chemical Analyzer that he was not aware of the nature of the alteration, with which the aforementioned breathalyzer test certificate was signed, sealed and executed , the judge added.

“Viewed from this point of view, the contention raised on behalf of the State that the applicant was largely a part of the conspiracy to commit the offense under Section 464 of the IPC, is valid.There is a prima facie case against the applicant.for offense committed under section 464 of the IPC.The said document clearly meets the definition of “valuable security” under Section 30 of the IPC as it undoubtedly created a right in the accused minor child of the applicant”. the bank held up.

The bench noted that the main contention of the prosecution is that all the occupants of the Porsche car, including the plaintiff’s son and the others, including the child in conflict with the law who was driving the car, were in a state of intoxication and in this situation the car was driven at such a high speed that it hit from behind the motorcycle on which the victims were riding, causing its death.

“There is merit in the contention raised by the Special Public Prosecutor that the absconding of the applicant has created an impediment for the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate the matter including the conspiracy angle and its components , concocted by the applicant with the co-accused, including the doctors who were bribed to replace the blood samples,” observed the bench, while denying anticipatory bail to Singh.

Appearance:

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

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