Delhi/Pune, 2nd February 2026: The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to Ashish Mittal, Aditya Sood and Amar Gaikwad, who were accused of helping manipulate blood samples following the fatal Porsche crash in Pune last year. The three men had spent nearly 18 months in jail in connection with the case.
The matter relates to the May 19, 2024 accident in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar area, where a 17-year-old allegedly driving a Porsche under the influence of alcohol rammed into a motorcycle, killing two young software engineers, Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, on the spot.
The incident triggered nationwide outrage, especially after allegations emerged that attempts were made to tamper with evidence.
Investigators alleged that blood samples taken at Sassoon Hospital were swapped to falsely show that the juvenile driver was not intoxicated. Ashish Mittal, a friend of the juvenile’s father, and Aditya Sood, the father of another minor who was in the car, were accused of providing blood samples.
Amar Gaikwad was described as a middleman who allegedly accepted ₹3 lakh to facilitate the swap with the help of a doctor.
While granting bail, Justice BV Nagarathna made strong observations on parenting and accountability. She remarked that parents who replace time and guidance with money and expensive cars fail in their duty. “Law has to catch up with such parents.
They don’t spend time with children and compensate with money and sports cars in the name of celebration,” she observed. The judge added that celebration cannot mean over-speeding and killing people on the road or footpaths, especially the poor.
The court noted that even the juvenile accused of driving the car faces a maximum punishment of three years and is being tried before the Juvenile Justice Board. It observed that keeping the three accused in prolonged custody would be unfair and prejudicial. “There cannot be punishment before conviction,” the court said, while allowing the bail pleas.
During the hearing, senior advocates appearing for the accused argued that the allegations, at their highest, related to limited offences and that the accused had already spent a substantial period in custody. On the other hand, counsel for the victim’s family termed the case a serious attempt to undermine the criminal justice system by manipulating the investigation.
The Supreme Court, however, clarified that bail does not mean a clean chit. It imposed strict conditions and warned that any attempt by the accused to contact or influence witnesses would lead to immediate cancellation of bail.
