Supreme court denies bail to father of minor co accused in Pune’s Porsche car accident in May
The Supreme Court has denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, father of a minor co-accused sitting next to the main accused – a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), who allegedly was driving the car on May 19, 2024, in a high speed and killed two youth after mowing them down in Pune’s Kalyani Nagar Porsche accident.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah upheld the October 23 order of the Bombay High Court which dismissed Singh’s anticipatory bail application.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija submitted that there is “prejudice” against the petitioner as he continues to face a “media trial”.
To this, Justice Dhulia said: “It happens”. Whereas, Justice Amanullah stated that the Court does not go by the prejudice surrounding a case.
Justice Dhulia sought clarification if the petitioner was related to the driver-CCL. To this, Makhija responded: “No, I am the father of the friend who was sitting at back, who had nothing to do with the [alleged incident]. They were only partying together. He wasn’t driving.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra also appeared for the petitioner. He took the Court through para.26 of the bail order, which reads: “The applicant has failed to make out a case in his favour for this Court to exercise discretion for granting anticipatory bail to him. The question of law raised on behalf of the applicant with regard to the very applicability of Section 467 read with Section 464 of the IPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is answered against the applicant. This Court finds that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie made out against the applicant.”
Luthra submitted that even in the worst-case scenario, Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code would be attracted. Section 464 and other sections have no application.
Makhija also requested for the Court to add that the observations made under para.26 are only for the purpose of bail. She said: “[Then], I am doomed in the trial.” However, the Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s order.
The Court said that whatever is being argued is a matter of trial. Justice Dhulia said: “You may have unshakingly case in the trial.”
Luthra pressed for withdrawing the SLP. But the Court dismissed it.
Justice Amanullah added: “Law is common to everyone. Can’t make a distinction. For these types of facts, we would not have [given] 20 seconds…”
