Click here to join Express Pune WhatsApp channel and get a curated list of our stories
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In focus
A court in Pune rejected an application filed by the 51-year-old father of the then minor driver in the Porsche crash case seeking a 21-day temporary bail for the spinal surgery of his 78-year-old mother. The court cited “reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses” while rejecting the plea of the accused.
Two young IT engineers — Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta — were killed after the speeding Porsche, allegedly driven by an inebriated 17-and-a-half-year-old from a Pune realtor family, rammed their motorcycle at Kalyani Nagar junction on May 19 last year.
On July 8, the father of the minor moved the court seeking a temporary bail of 21 days. Advocates for the accused argued that his mother is suffering from a serious medical condition and is advised lumbar spine surgery. The father of the accused is 79 years old and his sister is married and she is residing at Delhi. They argued that the wife of the accused, also an accused in the case, who was released on interim bail, is mentally disturbed.
Therefore, the presence of the accused with his mother before and after surgery is necessary to take her care and make decisions regarding her surgery, his lawyers argued.
Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued that the lumbar spinal surgery of the mother of the accused is planned surgery. Hiray said that the accused’s father, sister, wife, son, brother-in-law can take care of the mother. He argued that the accused and co-accused had hatched conspiracy and they tried to interfere and thwart the investigation and criminal justice administration system.
He pointed out that the medical prescriptions are dated July 7 and bail application is taken out on July 8 which reveals deliberate creation of medical documentation for the sole purpose of seeking relief, Hiray argued.
Rejecting the bail plea, the court said in the order, “On prima facie appreciation of the material on record and considering the nature of the offence, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, nature of material relied by prosecution, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and larger interests of public, there appear no justifiable grounds for releasing the applicant/accused on temporary bail at this stage. As such, the present application is liable to be rejected.”
The court passed the order on July 25 which was subsequently made available online.
