The court held that the accused conspired to tamper with blood samples and falsify medical records to shield the juvenile driver, observing that such acts “eroded the very way of justice.”
Justice Shyam C. Chandak, pronouncing the order, said, “There is a strong prima facie case against the applicants of having entered into a criminal conspiracy to tamper with the prosecution evidence and to create false evidence with the help of false documents in the nature of Medical Certificate of the CCL and his friends that they were not under the influence of alcohol.”
The pleas were filed by eight individuals: Aditya Avinash Sood and Arunkumar Devnath Singh, businessmen and fathers of the juvenile’s friends; Vishal Agarwal, builder and father of the juvenile (Child in Conflict with Law); Ashish Satish Mittal, accused of providing his blood sample for swapping; Amar Santosh Gaikwad and Ashpak Basha Makandar, alleged middlemen; and two Sassoon Hospital doctors, Dr. Ajay Aniruddha Taware and Shrihari Bhimrao Halnor, accused of manipulating medical records.
The accident occurred around 2 a.m. on May 19, 2024, when a luxury car allegedly driven by a 17-year-old juvenile rammed a motorcycle, killing Anis Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta. The juvenile and his friends had reportedly consumed alcohol before the crash. Initially booked under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 IPC and Motor Vehicles Act provisions, the FIR was later amended to include Section 304 IPC.
The charge sheet invokes Sections 304, 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 r/w 34 IPC, provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray argued, “The applicants showed no respect to the dead who were young like the CCL. Rather they insulted their death and made mockery of the justice by tampering with and causing disappearance of the prosecution evidence, using corrupt practice and taking in their control the public hospital system.”
He cited CCTV footage, call records, and forensic reports, adding, “Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware accepted ₹3,00,000 as a bribe amount through the applicants Ashpak Makandar and Amar Gaikwad.”
The court noted ₹2,50,000 was seized from a medical student and ₹50,000 from co-accused Atul Ghatkambale.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, for Vishal Agarwal, said the accident happened “behind his back” and argued there was no statutory bar for bail. Advocates for other applicants claimed they acted under pressure or had no role in the conspiracy.
Rejecting the pleas, Justice Chandak noted, “The offence is serious. Applicants jointly tried eroding that very way of the justice to be done to the two innocent, who died in the accident at very young age.”
On forgery, the court held, “The false certificate extinguished the prosecution’s right to claim and prove that the CCL and his friends had consumed alcohol. The said document clearly answers the definition of ‘valuable security’ under Section 30 IPC.”
The court dismissed arguments on procedural lapses, stressing victim rights, “Safeguarding the justice to be done to the victims of the crime/their families is one of the facets of Article 14, victims cannot be made to suffer for the mistakes or lapse on the part of the police.”
“While ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception,’ the seriousness of the offence and risk of tampering justified denial,” the order read.
The judge noted Shivani Agarwal, the juvenile’s mother, was granted bail earlier only on gender grounds.
The order invoked Article 14 and victim rights under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), citing Section 123 which gives victims the right to object to bail. It relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Amarmani Tripathi, emphasizing that bail decisions must weigh severity and risk of influencing witnesses.
Applicant Amar Gaikwad’s plea citing obesity and diabetes was rejected, “No material is pointed out to show as to which specific and urgent medical treatment is required.”
The High Court directed the trial court to frame charges and examine material witnesses at the earliest, granting liberty to renew bail pleas after examination of material prosecution witnesses.
