Premium

Pune Porsche case: SC issues notice on bail pleas by 2 accused

In December last year, the Bombay High Court had denied bail to eight accused in the Pune Porsche case.

3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jan 7, 2026 06:07 PM IST

Supreme Court issued notice on bail pleas by two accused in the Pune Porsche case. (Source: File)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on the bail pleas of businessmen Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood, accused of swapping their blood samples in the 2024 Porsche hit-and-run case in Pune that killed two young software engineers.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued the notice on the pleas challenging a December 16, 2025, order of the Bombay High Court that denied bail to eight accused in the case, including Mittal and Sood.

On May 19, 2024, engineers Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta were killed after a speeding Porsche car, allegedly driven by an inebriated 17-and-a-half-year-old from a Pune realtor’s family, rammed into their motorcycle at Kalyani Nagar junction. The subsequent police investigation unravelled alleged cover-ups, bribery, abuse of power, and tampering with blood samples at the government-run Sassoon General Hospital.

The fatal accident had taken place after the minor and his friends had celebrated their Class 12 exam results at a pub. The minor was allegedly driving a Porsche Taycan luxury car without number plates. Other than the minor driver, the police have arraigned and chargesheeted 10 accused. The minor’s parents have been charged with criminal conspiracy for allegedly orchestrating a swap of his blood sample—collected at Sassoon Hospital—with the mother’s.

Dismissing the bail applications, the high court had said, “…the collective object of all the applicants…was, to tamper with the evidence by falsification of the medical record in the government hospital. This they wanted to accomplish with the help of their premeditated conspiracy.”

The HC said that the investigation material, including the chemical analysis (CA) and DNA reports “clearly show that for obtaining the wrong blood samples for the purpose of CA, completely different method of taking blood samples was adopted, which was only for the bribe amount”.

“This prima facie conclusion is supported by the fact that, even at the stage of taking the fresh blood samples at Aundh hospital, same interference was tried to be made against the Medical Officer there,” the court said.

Story continues below this ad

It added that in the wake of this, if bail was granted to the applicants, even subjecting them to stringent conditions, there was every possibility of their tampering with the prosecution evidence “using their money power and superiority dominance”. “This would ultimately thwart the course of justice in this case which was exposed to danger soon after the accident, because, as highlighted by the learned Special PP, there was unusual delay in the medical examination of the CCL (Child in Conflict with Law) and his two friends. Secondly, the belatedly recorded statement of Adi Shaikh also hints at that danger,” it further said.

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case thus, the apprehension of the prosecution that the applicant would tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence is well founded. Therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise the discretion of bail in favour of the applicants, at least, till the examination of the material prosecution witnesses is over, who are vulnerable to pressurising or any other influencing tactics leading to their turning non-supportive or hostile to the prosecution case. This way, the rights of both the parties would remain intact,” the court had said, rejecting the applications.