[Pune Porche Accident Case] Bombay HC denies anticipatory bail to co-accused minor son’s father, who changed blood samples

Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant was one of the accused persons concerning FIR dated 19-05-2024, registered at Police Station Yerawada, District Pune, for offences under Sections 304 ², 338 ³, 337 ⁴, 427 ⁵, 279 ⁶, 120-B ⁷, 201 ⁸, 213 ⁹, 214 ¹⁰, 466 ¹¹, 467 ¹², 468 ¹³, 471 ¹⁴, and 109 ¹⁵ read with Section 34 ¹⁶ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 184, 185, 3(1) 180, 5(1) 171, 119-A, and 199/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A Single Judge Bench of Manish Pitale, J., opined that the deception in the present case was practised by labeling the subject blood sample as that of the minor son of applicant, while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal, thus, applicant was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC. The Court opined that there was a strong prima facie case made out against applicant for offence committed under Section 467 of IPC read with Section 464 ¹⁷ of IPC.

The Court noted that the investigating authority stated that the Porsche car, was being driving in a drunken state and in such a high speed that it hit the motorcycle from behind on which the victims were riding, causing their death. The Court agreed with the contention that applicant remained absconding, which created an impediment for the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate into the matter and thus, held that applicant had failed to make out a case in his favour for this Court to exercise discretion for granting anticipatory bail to him as the ingredients of the offences were prima facie made out against applicant.

Background

The FIR in the present case was registered on the information received by Aquib Mulla, who stated that when he and his friends were returning home after a party, near a society in Kalyani Nagar, Airport Road, Pune, a Porsche car, which did not have registration plates, was being driven in an extremely rash and negligent manner, under drunken condition by a child in conflict of law, which later hit a motorcycle from the backside and caused death of the victims. The occupants of the car included the minor son of applicant, who was sitting in the rear seat of the car.

The investigation was conducted, and it was alleged that the parents of the child indulged in illegal conduct by bribing the doctors of the hospital where the blood samples of the occupants of the car were collected for analysis. Further, it was alleged that applicant replaced the blood sample of his minor son in connivance with the doctors and staff, and the co-accused parents of the child, with the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal and such replaced blood sample was sent for analysis. As per the investigating authority, the other co-accused persons were arrested, while applicant remained absconding and thereafter, he applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, but the same was rejected by an order dated 09-09-2024.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court opined that prima facie the material on record indicated that the blood sample of applicant’s minor son was replaced with the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal, and this was done by applicant himself to create a document that would ensure that the minor son goes scot free. The Court noted that the co-accused parents of the child and other co-accused persons, including the doctors of the hospital and other employees were all arrested, while applicant remained absconding.

The Court referred to Section 464 of IPC and stated that a false document could be made or created in three contingencies specified in the said provision. The Court relied on Mohd Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 and opined that in the present case, the third limb of Section 464 of IPC was invoked, which required that the document in was obtained by practicing deception on a person due to which he did not get the knowledge of the nature of alteration.

The Court opined that the deception here was practised by labeling the subject blood sample as that of the minor son of applicant, while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal, thus, applicant was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC to bring such deception by affixing of label. The Court also opined that it was the label affixed on the blood sample that was the basis of deception, read with the documents created in conspiracy with the co-accused doctor, thus, the contention by applicant that blood sample was not a document could not be accepted. Further, it was due to this deception practised on the Assistant Chemical Analyzer that he had no knowledge of the nature of alteration, resulting in the said Alcohol Examination Certificate being signed, sealed, and executed. Therefore, the Court accepted the contention of respondent that applicant was very much part of the conspiracy in committing the offence under Section 464 of IPC.

The Court opined that there was a strong prima facie case made out against applicant for offence committed under Section 467 of IPC read with Section 464 and the said document clearly answered the definition of “valuable security” under Section 30 of IPC, as it certainly, created a right in the minor son of applicant of portraying innocence.

The Court noted that the investigating authority stated that the occupants of the Porsche car, including applicant’s son and the others including the child in conflict with law driving the car were in a drunken state and in that situation the car was driven in such a high speed that it hit the motorcycle from behind on which the victims were riding, causing their death. The Court thus opined that a strong prima facie was made out against applicant which could be a basis to reject the anticipatory bail.

The Court agreed with the contention of respondent that applicant remaining absconding had created an impediment for the investigating authority to fully and effectively investigate into the matter, including the angle of conspiracy and the constituents thereof, hatched by applicant with the co-accused persons, including the doctors who were bribed for replacing the blood samples.

The Court held that applicant had failed to make out a case in his favour for this Court to exercise discretion for granting anticipatory bail to him as the ingredients of the offences were prima facie made out against applicant. The Court dismissed the application as an offence under Section 467 of IPC prescribed punishment with imprisonment for life.

[Arunkumar Devnath Singh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3402, decided on 23-10-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the Applicant: Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Abid Mulani, Ashish Agarkar, Harshada Panphani and Chinmay Patil, for Applicant.

For the Respondent: Shishir Hiray, Special Public Prosecutor a/w Sanjay Kokane and Sagar R. Agarkar, APP for Respondent — State.