IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
Mr. Aditya Avinash Sood - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Bail Application No. 2470, 2482, 2733, 2850 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 2904, 2902 of 2025 With Bail Application No. 3751, 3809, 5173 of 2024
Decided On : 16-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the bail application. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. summary of parties' arguments for bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments related to evidence and prosecution case. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on evidentiary issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 24) |
| 5. reasoning behind denying bail. (Para 22 , 28) |
| 6. final conclusion and order. (Para 29 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
1. Denial of bail by the trial Court leads the Applicants to file these Applications seeking their release on bail in Special Case (ACB) No.917/2024 arising out of C.R.No.306/2024 registered with Yerwada Police Station, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 304 , 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “ IPC ”) and Sections 7 , 7-A, 8, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “PC Act”) and Sections 184 , 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181, 199 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”).
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the respective Applicant, Mr. Hiray, the learned Special PP for the Respondent – State and Mr. Ankit Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the Intervenor. Perused the Applications, the Affidavit-in-reply and the relevant documents.
3. The prosecution story is that, applicant Vishal is father of “V” (“CCL”). On 19/05/2024, at about 2.00 AM, said CCL, his friends Aayush Sood, Naman Singh and Adi Shaikh were returning from a party in a Porshe car bearing no RTO registered number plate. The CCL was driving the car and his private driver namely Gangadhar had occupied the seat besides the CCL. The CCL’s three friends were occupied on the rear the seat. At about 2.10 AM, when the car arrived near landmark society of Kalyani Nagar, on Airport road, a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-14-CQ-3622 was proceeding ahead of the car. Suddenly, the car dashed that motorcycle from its behind. As a result, the motorcycle rider Anis Awadhiya and his pillion Ashwini Koshta sustained grievous injuries and immediately, succumbed to their injuries. As alleged, just before the accident, the CCL and his three friends with others had enjoyed a party consuming alcohol. Therefore, at the time of this accident, the CCL was under the influence of alcohol. However, he drove the car at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner despite he was cautioned not to drive the car in the drunken state and in such a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, informant Aquib Mulla filed a Report pursuant to which the aforesaid F.I.R came to be registered under Sections 304A, 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC and 184, 119 and 177 of the MV Act.
Immediately, the police visited the spot and commenced investigation. The eyewitnesses to the accident and those who had apprehended the CCL and his friends at the spot, informed the police that the CCL and his friends were drunk and were under the influence of alcohol. His friend Adi Shaikh had fled away from the spot. Therefore, the police referred the CCL, Aayush Sood and Naman Singh for medical examination to the Sassoon Hospital. The medical examination was in the nature of clinical examination, taking blood sample etc. of the CCL and his two friends.
It is alleged that, meanwhile, all the applicants alongwith their co-accused namely Atul Ghatkambale and Shivani Agarwal, who is mother of the CCL, hatched a criminal conspiracy to cause disappearance of the evidence, in particular, to record ‘Nil alcohol’ report of the clinical examination and changing the blood sample of the CCL, Naman Singh and Aayush Sood with the blood sample of Shivani Agarwal, Ashish Mittal and Aditya Sood respectively, for certain bribe amount to be given to and accepted by the Applicants Dr. Halnor and Dr. Taware. Dr. Halnor was responsible to medically examine the CCL and his friends and take their blood samples. Dr. Taware involved in the conspiracy to get that work done through Dr. Halnor. Co-accused Atul Gha

Manish Sisodia v/s. Directorate of Enforcement
Pinki Devi & Ors. vs. The State OF Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
AI
The court emphasized that bail is an exception, not a rule, particularly in serious cases involving conspiracy and evidence tampering, considering the likelihood of witness intimidation.
The court affirmed that under Section 437(6) of the CrPC, the magistrate's discretion in denying bail is contingent upon justifiable reasons, balancing trial delays against the need to preserve justi....
Failure to serve grounds of arrest immediately renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to bail, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and compliance with constitutional rights.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court ruled that the seriousness of charges and ongoing risk to witnesses outweigh the defendant's custody length and medical claims, justifying bail denial.
The court established that while the charges are serious, the evidence collected does not necessitate continued detention, leading to the granting of bail under stringent conditions for accountabilit....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.