Supreme Court Grants Bail to Three Accused in Pune Porsche Case: A Shift in the Evidence Tampering Probe

​The high-profile Pune Porsche crash case, which shook the nation’s conscience in May 2024, has seen a significant legal development. On February 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of India granted conditional bail to three men accused of participating in a deep-rooted conspiracy to tamper with evidence. This decision comes nearly 20 months after the tragic incident that claimed the lives of two young IT professionals, Ashwini Koshta and Aneesh Awadhiya.

​The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, ordered the release of Aditya Avinash Sood, Ashish Satish Mittal, and Amar Santosh Gaikwad. While the decision brings a measure of relief to the accused, it has sparked intense debate regarding the balance between personal liberty and the integrity of a high-stakes criminal investigation.

​Understanding the Role of the Three Accused

​To understand why this bail is significant, we must look at the specific allegations against these three individuals. They were not in the driver's seat during the crash, but they are central to the "blood-swapping" scandal that emerged shortly after the accident.

​Aditya Sood and Ashish Mittal are businessmen whose sons were reportedly passengers in the luxury car at the time of the collision. The prosecution alleges that these parents conspired to replace their children’s blood samples with their own to hide traces of alcohol consumption. Amar Santosh Gaikwad is alleged to have acted as a middleman, facilitating the bribe-fueled swap between the families and the medical staff at Sassoon General Hospital.

​The prosecution’s theory is that this wasn't just a simple mistake but a calculated attempt to use money and influence to derail the investigation. By swapping the blood samples, the families allegedly hoped to protect the minors from being linked to a night of underage drinking and reckless behavior.

​The Supreme Court’s Reasoning: Liberty vs. Incarceration

​The primary reason the Supreme Court decided to grant bail was the length of time the accused had already spent in custody. Having spent nearly 18 to 20 months in jail without the trial reaching a conclusion, the court observed that "continued incarceration would cause undue prejudice."

​Justice Nagarathna emphasized a fundamental principle of Indian law: that there should be no "punishment before conviction." Since the maximum sentence for the principal offense involving the juvenile driver is relatively short under the Juvenile Justice Act, the court found it disproportionate to keep the alleged conspirators behind bars indefinitely while the trial moved at a slow pace.

​The court also noted that the investigation into the evidence-tampering aspect is largely complete, and multiple charge sheets have been filed. Therefore, the immediate need for custodial interrogation had diminished.

​Strict Conditions and Parental Responsibility

​While the court granted bail, it did not do so without strings attached. The release is subject to strict conditions to ensure that the trial process is not compromised.

​The Bail Conditions

• ​The accused must not establish any contact with witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

• ​They are required to cooperate fully with the trial court and attend all proceedings.

• ​Any infraction or violation of these conditions will lead to the immediate cancellation of their bail.

• ​Specific financial bonds and sureties will be determined by the local trial court in Pune.

​Beyond the legal technicalities, the Supreme Court made stinging oral observations about parental responsibility. The bench expressed deep concern over the "irresponsible" behavior of wealthy parents who provide minors with high-speed luxury cars and the means to indulge in substance abuse. The judges remarked that celebration should not be based on substance abuse and speeding, especially when it results in the loss of innocent lives.

​The Reaction from the Victims' Families

​For the families of Ashwini Koshta and Aneesh Awadhiya, the news of the bail has been difficult to swallow. They have publicly expressed their disappointment, stating that the decision sends a "wrong message" to society.

​The victims' kin argue that the wealth and influence of the accused are being used to circumvent the law. From their perspective, the evidence-tampering was a second crime—an assault on the justice system itself. They fear that the release of these individuals might lead to further witness intimidation, despite the court's warnings.

​The Status of the Main Accused and the Road Ahead

​It is important to clarify that this bail order does not apply to the teen driver or his immediate parents, Vishal and Shivani Agarwal, who remain under legal scrutiny for their specific roles in the incident and the subsequent cover-up. The teen driver continues to be dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB).

​The Pune Porsche case has become a landmark example of systemic corruption and the "rich vs. poor" divide in the legal system. The fact that medical professionals, police officers, and wealthy businessmen were all allegedly involved in a single conspiracy to protect a minor has led to a much larger probe into how deep these influences go.

​As the trial moves forward, the focus will shift from the grant of bail to the strength of the evidence. The prosecution now faces the task of proving that the blood-swapping conspiracy was a deliberate act of forgery and bribery.

​Conclusion: A Balancing Act of Justice

​The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal, and Amar Gaikwad is a reminder that the law must protect the rights of the accused as much as it seeks justice for the victims. By focusing on the 18 months already served and the principle of "bail, not jail," the court chose to uphold personal liberty while the slow wheels of justice turn.

​However, the case is far from over. The eyes of the nation remain on Pune, waiting to see if the "mechanisations" mentioned by the Supreme Court will be successfully prosecuted. For many, true justice will only be served when the trial reaches a verdict that accounts for both the fatal crash and the elaborate web of lies that followed it.