Pune Porsche crash: Supreme Court grants bail to three accused, flags 18-month detention and ‘parenting failure’

SC granted bail to three accused in the Pune Porsche crash case after 18 months, warning that celebrations cannot come at the cost of human lives

PGurus Newsdesk

February 2, 2026

SC granted bail to three accused in the Pune Porsche crash case after 18 months, warning that celebrations cannot come at the cost of human lives

‘Celebration can’t mean killing on roads’: SC in Pune Porsche crash case

The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to three men accused of helping tamper with blood samples in the 2024 Pune Porsche crash case, in which two young software engineers were killed. The court noted that the accused had already spent around 18 months in custody.

The case stems from the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar, where a 17-year-old, allegedly driving a Porsche under the influence of alcohol, rammed into a two-wheeler, killing Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta on the spot.

Those granted bail are Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood and Amar Gaikwad. Mittal is a friend of the juvenile’s father, Sood is the father of another minor who was in the car’s back seat, and Gaikwad is alleged to have acted as a middleman. The prosecution alleged that blood samples at Sassoon Hospital were swapped to conceal alcohol consumption, with Gaikwad allegedly receiving Rs 3 lakh for facilitating the exchange.

While granting bail, Justice BV Nagarathna made sharp observations on parental responsibility, saying parents who compensate for lack of time with money and high-end cars fail in their duty.

“Celebration cannot mean overspeeding and killing people on the road. The law has to catch up with such parents,” she said, adding that public outrage was inevitable in such cases.

The court noted that even the maximum punishment for the juvenile driver is three years and that the case against him is being heard by the Juvenile Justice Board. It held that continued incarceration of the accused, given the nature of allegations and the length of custody, would be prejudicial.

Senior advocates appearing for Mittal and Sood argued that the allegations, at their highest, attracted limited offences and that both had already spent over a year in jail. Opposing bail, counsel for the victim’s family described the case as an attempt to undermine the criminal justice system by manipulating evidence.

The Supreme Court allowed the bail pleas with strict conditions, warning that any attempt to influence witnesses or interfere with the trial would lead to cancellation of bail.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.