SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1827

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Abid Mulani a/w. Mr. Ashish P. Agarkar, Mr. Raj Mulani, Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Mr. Adesh Agarkar, Mr. Mandar Shinde and Ms. Shraddha Kulkarni, Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay and Ms. Dhvani Shah, Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Prashant Patil, Mr. Swapnil Ambure, Ms. Harshada Parbhane, Ms. Nida Khan and Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Shirish Gupte, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Aniket Nikam, Mr. Ranjit Ade, Mr. Rajendra Nemane, Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Anant Charkhe and Mr. Nilesh Rathod, Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w. Ms. Keral Mehta and Mr. Yash Naik i/b. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad, Mr. Jaydeep Mane (through VC) a/w. Ms. Ishan Paradkar, Mr. Yash, Fadtare and Mr. Malhar Kadam
For the Respondent: Mr. Shishir Hiray, Special PP a/w. Mr. Shubham Joshi, Mr. Sanjay Kokane, Mr. Tanveer Khan and Ms. Supriya Kak, APPs, Mr. Ankit Patil a/w. Mr. Yash Shrivas and Ms. Iraa Dube Patil i/b. Jay and Co. for the Intervenor, Mr. Vijay Kumbhar, ACP (Crime) and Mr. Santosh Dolas, ASI, present.

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 304, 279, 337, 338, 427, 120-B, 201, 213, 214, 466, 467, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13 - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181, 199(a) - Bail Applications for applicants accused of causing deaths due to rash and negligent driving while under the influence of alcohol and conspiracy to tamper with evidence - Allegations include driving at high speed and involvement in a conspiracy to alter medical records to mislead the investigation. (Paras 1, 8, 9, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
The applicants are involved in an accident resulting in the death of two individuals while the primary driver was allegedly intoxicated. Post-accident, it is alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to alter blood samples and medical reports to provide a false narrative regarding the driver's sobriety.

Findings of Court:
The court found a prima facie case of conspiracy and tampering with evidence. It noted the seriousness of the allegations against the applicants and the potential for them to influence witnesses, hence denying bail. The investigation had sufficient evidence, including witness statements and forensic results that linked the applicants to the crime. (Paras 24, 28)

Issues: The key issues included whether the bail should be granted considering the severity of the charges, the applicants' potential to abscond, and the risk of tampering with witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that bail is granted in exceptional circumstances given the gravity of the charges against the applicants, their financial position that provided opportunity for influence, and the ongoing risk to the integrity of the investigation. The necessity to ensure justice for the victims and integrity of legal processes was paramount in denying bail. (Paras 26, 28)

Result: Bail applications rejected.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top