Pune Porsche crash: Court rejects temporary bail plea of juvenile's father
In an order issued dated July 25 (uploaded on July 28), Additional Sessions Judge KP Kshirsagar observed that there were no justifiable grounds to grant temporary bail at this stage, citing the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of the allegations, and the reasonable apprehension that the accused may tamper with witnesses.
The judge also stressed the need to consider the rights of the victims and the larger public interest.
The accused's 17-year-old son, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, rammed a Porsche into a motorbike, killing two software engineers. Following the incident, the juvenile's parents, along with senior doctors and staff from Sassoon General Hospital, were arrested for allegedly attempting to manipulate the teenager's blood test reports to indicate sobriety.
The accused is facing serious charges under Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code, relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Motor Vehicles Act. While his wife is out on interim bail, he remains in judicial custody along with Sassoon Hospital doctors Ajay Taware and Shrihari Halnor, hospital staff, and alleged middlemen involved in the cover-up.
The defence argued that the bail plea was based solely on humanitarian grounds. It stated that the man's mother suffers from a severe spinal condition requiring planned lumbar surgery, and as her only son, his presence was essential for making medical decisions and assisting in post-operative care. The defence also pointed out that his father is elderly, his sister lives in Delhi, and his wife is mentally distressed.
However, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) opposed the application, contending that the ailment cited was age-related and not life-threatening. The surgery was elective and pre-scheduled, and other family members were available to assist.
The court noted that he had already tried to interfere with the investigation and that his release would likely prejudice public interest and the justice process.
The court stated, 'Considering the nature of surgery, the availability of other family members, and the fact that the applicant's mother is not in a critical condition, there is no just ground for the grant of temporary bail.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court denies bail to ex-BJP MLA for shooting inside police station
Calling the act 'shocking' and 'unacceptable in a civilised society', the Bombay High Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) rejected the bail plea of former BJP MLA Ganpat Gaikwad, accused of opening fire on Shiv Sena leader Mahesh Gaikwad inside a police station last year. Justice Amit Borkar, while refusing bail, underscored the gravity of the incident and observed, 'The allegations against the applicant are of extremely grave and disturbing nature. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the applicant, who is a former elected representative (MLA), brazenly entered the cabin of the Senior Police Inspector at Hill Line Police Station, armed with a loaded revolver. It is alleged that he opened fire and discharged two rounds of bullets upon the injured Mahesh Gaikwad, with the clear intention of causing his death. It is further alleged that he also aimed and fired at another person present, Rahul Patil, thereby attempting to cause him fatal injuries as well.' Ganpat Gaikwad, a former MLA from the Kalyan (East) constituency, filed a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in connection with a case registered at Hill Line Police Station, Ulhasnagar. He is accused of offences under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 143, 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), 109 (abetment), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 30 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, on February 2, 2024, the two gathered at Hill Line Police Station, each demanding criminal action against the other. Around 9:30 p.m., Shiv Sena leader Mahesh Gaikwad, along with Rahul Patil and complainant Chainu Jadhav, was inside the Senior Police Inspector's cabin when Ganpat Gaikwad and his associate Vicky Ganatra entered. A heated argument broke out between the two factions. As tensions escalated, Senior PI Anil Jagtap stepped out to control the situation outside the cabin. The prosecution has alleged that after emptying all bullets from the revolver, the applicant noticed that the injured Mahesh was still alive. At this point, the Ganpat is stated to have sat on the Mahesh's chest and inflicted multiple forceful blows on his head using the butt of the revolver, a part not meant for attack, further aggravating the assault. 'Such an act, if taken to be true, demonstrates not only an intention to kill but also reveals the applicant's determination to ensure fatal consequences, irrespective of the location and presence of police officers,' Justice Borkar said, adding that these allegations, viewed in the context of the place where the incident occurred, inside the cabin of a senior police officer within the four corners of a police station, add a serious dimension to the entire episode. 'A police station is presumed to be a secure place for redressal of disputes and protection of life and liberty. If a violent crime of this scale is allowed to take place within such a protected zone, it shakes the confidence of the public in the ability of law enforcement machinery to maintain peace and order. A person, more so a public representative, engaging in such conduct reflects not only disregard for the rule of law but also sends a message of fear and intimidation to the citizens at large,' the court observed. While passing the order, the Judge said that the court is conscious of the fact that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, at the stage of considering bail, the court cannot remain oblivious to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. 'The nature of the allegations, the place of occurrence, and the conduct of the applicant, as narrated in the FIR and corroborated prima facie by CCTV footage and medical evidence, all suggest that the applicant's act was not one of mere provocation or sudden anger, but a deliberate and violent assault carried out with aggression. Such circumstances militate against the grant of bail at this stage,' the order read. The prosecution has placed significant reliance on CCTV footage from within the police station and the footage has been made part of the case record and, on initial examination, prima facie supports the account given by the first informant and injured eyewitnesses. The court noted that such electronic evidence plays a critical role at the bail stage. The ballistic report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory has confirmed that the bullets recovered from the injured victim's body were fired from the revolver seized from the applicant. This scientific evidence forms a critical link in the prosecution's chain of events, establishing a strong prima facie connection between the weapon and the injuries sustained. Ganpat Gaikwad claimed the incident was the result of a sudden fit of rage, lacking any premeditated intent. However, the footage clearly showed him entering the police station armed with a loaded revolver, which itself suggests conscious preparation, not an impulsive emotional outburst, the court said. The prosecution also relied on an audio recording of an interview the applicant allegedly gave to a private news channel, in which he is heard admitting to his intent to kill Mahesh Gaikwad and showing no remorse. This admission was made voluntarily and in the public domain, not under duress. The court noted that it reveals a mindset of justification rather than repentance, reinforcing the prosecution's position that the act was deliberate, intentional, and committed with impunity. The court found that the applicant's explanation lacks credibility, and the material on record clearly discloses a premeditated and violent act. At this stage, such conduct cannot be condoned, and the bail plea deserves to be rejected. 'The offence alleged against the applicant, if ultimately proved, is not only heinous but also indicative of a complete disregard for the rule of law and public safety. The manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the location where it occurred, and the applicant's own post-incident conduct raise serious concerns regarding the possibility of obstruction of justice if he is released on bail/. In such circumstances, the Court finds that no case is made out for grant of bail at this stage,' the order said.
India Today
17 minutes ago
- India Today
Top court examines screening process in corruption probes against public servants
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, during the crucial hearing on the constitutional validity of Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, examined whether the requirement of prior approval before initiating investigations against public servants strikes the right balance between protecting honest officers and ensuring provision, introduced through a 2018 amendment, requires prior sanction from the competent authority before any probe is launched into decisions taken by public servants while discharging official has been challenged by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which argues that the clause enables selective shielding of corrupt officials and creates a conflict of interest. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan highlighted the need to safeguard honest bureaucrats, while also acknowledging the possibility of court asked petitioner's counsel, advocate Prashant Bhushan, 'Is your objection to the very concept of screening, or to the fact that the approving authority is the government itself?''If there is no screening, a FIR by itself can cause tremendous stigma. We also have to consider that there are good officers. Honest officers have to be protected also,' the bench Viswanathan noted that public servants sometimes act in the country's interest and later face scrutiny. He cited a book by Mr. Subramaniam, referring to a case where a bureaucrat purchased coal during a shortage and was later booked because it was alleged that it could have been procured at a lower price.'This is the kind of fear among honest bureaucrats,' the court noted. 'So there is some screening. If you think there's bias in screening, that's one thing. But questioning the very idea of screening is another.'The court added that the petitioner was viewing the issue only through the lens of corruption. 'What about decisions taken every day? You can't say all are tainted.'It also questioned whether the possibility of misuse alone was enough to strike down the provision. 'If the problem lies in implementation, that can be challenged. But is that enough to invalidate the law?'Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defending the provision, argued that Section 17A aims to ensure that honest officials are not discouraged by the fear of criminal proceedings.'80 to 90% of people in government are sincere and honest,' Mehta said. 'It's important to give them confidence that they won't be harassed unnecessarily.'He added, 'Fearless good governance is also part of rule of law.'Mehta stressed that every administrative decision is bound to upset someone and without screening, officials would live in constant fear of clarified that the provision only applies to acts done in official capacity, and not to cases where officials are caught red-handed. 'Such persons cannot claim protection under Section 17A,' he bench asked questions about how the screening process functions in reality. 'Is it true that blue-eyed boys and girls get away?' it asked, seeking clarity on who decides on approval under Section Mehta said it depends on the officer's cadre, the court asked if denials of approval can also be challenged. 'If permission is granted, aggrieved parties can challenge it. But what happens if it is denied?' the bench responded that denial too can be challenged, including by approaching courts for permission to file an Prashant Bhushan, appearing for CPIL, argued that the provision leads to serious conflicts of interest, especially in high-level cases of corruption.'Lower-level officers rarely act alone. Senior officials are often complicit. If they're also the ones granting sanction, that's a problem,' he proposed that instead of requiring sanction, courts should be allowed to strike down mala fide FIRs, and a mandatory preliminary inquiry should be the hearing concluded, the bench indicated that it would need to assess whether the provision maintains the right balance between anti-corruption efforts and protecting honest provision can't be seen from one prism,' the court said. 'Yes, it may shield dishonest officers. But it also safeguards honest ones.'The court added that if the intent of Parliament was to protect officials from baseless complaints, then the law must be seen as a protective measure. However, concerns about its misuse relate more to implementation than to the law itself.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Man hit by e-rickshaw dies after 10 days on ventilator
1 2 Kolkata: A 58-year-old man who was knocked down by a mechanised retrofitted electric rickshaw in Kestopur last month succumbed to his injuries on Tuesday, after 10 days of ventilation support. Dipak Kundu was hit by the rickshaw near his home at Kestopur Mondalpara on July 25. Cops arrested the driver, Bablu Mondal, two days later. However, since these vehicles do not come under the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act, the driver was granted bail by a Barasat court. "My father died for no fault of his own. We are poor, and it cost us lakhs to fund his treatment at a private hospital for more than a week, following which we shifted him to RG Kar Medical College and Hospital. He died there on Tuesday," said Sushmita Paul, Kundu's daughter. "We couldn't save him but we hope he gets justice and the man responsible for his death is punished." You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata After learning of the man's death, cops said they will add fresh sections to the case and will try to ensure the errant driver gets the relevant punishment. This is the third fatal accident involving these three-wheelers in the last 14 months. On May 1, Shikha Dutta, an elderly woman, and her dog were killed in Salt Lake's BL Block after being struck by a mechanised rickshaw. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Guatemala: Unsold Sofas at Bargain Prices (Prices May Surprise You) Sofas | Search Ads Search Now Undo In June last year, a Netaji Nagar resident visiting his daughter in Salt Lake died after a similar accident near Salt Lake's Central Park. Earlier this year, TOI reported how many electric rickshaws in Salt Lake and other parts of Bidhannagar reach speeds of up to 45 kmph — nearly thrice the average vehicular speed in Kolkata. Bidhannagar police have launched a fresh drive against illegal and speeding mechanised electric rickshaws. In light of the limitations, police have written to the state PVD, requesting a regulatory framework to enable enforcement against such vehicles. Officials said the PVD is working on a draft to fill this legal gap. Police say their renewed campaign will include field inspections to monitor speed and raids on units assembling illegal vehicles in places like Baguiati, Kaikhali and other areas. "Until a proper regulation is in place, we will focus on enforcement through available legal tools," an officer said. "We are trying our best to control the vehicles with available legal means. Multiple three-wheelers have been seized for violating speed norms and rash driving, and we are also undertaking regular awareness campaigns urging the three-wheeler drivers to drive safely and stay within safe speed limits of 25 kmph," said an officer.
