IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO(S).2932 OF 2026)

VISHAL SURENDRAKUMAR AGARWAL APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the order dated

16.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application No.2733 of 2025.

The appellant has been facing trial in connection with a crime registered pursuant to FIR No.306 of 2024 dated 19.05.2024 lodged with Police Station Yerwada, District Pune City in respect of 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 (in short, "IPC") and Sections 7, 7-A, 8, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, "PC Act") and Sections 184, 185, 199/177, 3(1)/180, 5(1)/181 and 199(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Signature Not Verified (in short, "MV Act"). The application seeking bail BORRA LM VALLI Date: 2026.03.10 Reason: having been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 16.12.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

Vide order dated 26.02.2026, this Court issued notice in the instant matter.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant herein is the father of the minor boy who was driving the car on the fateful day despite a driver being provided; that the allegations which have been levelled as against the appellant herein are not true at all; that with regard to the other accused this Court has granted the relief of bail; the appellant herein is also similarly situated inasmuch as he has also completed twenty two months of incarceration. In the circumstances, the appellant herein also may be granted the relief of bail subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed.

In this regard, the order passed by this Court in the connected appeals viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and 629 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated

27.02.2026 have been brought to our notice.

Per contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent-State with reference to the counter affidavit contended that the allegations against the appellant herein are serious; that there is no parity between the appellant-accused and the accused in the other cases wherein this Court had granted the relief of bail inasmuch as the appellant herein is the father of the child, who drove the vehicle on the fateful day leading to the death of two innocent persons on the road. He contended that attempts were made by the appellant and the other accused to ensure that evidence in the instant case is not only suppressed, but also was wholly substituted inasmuch as the attempts were made to substitute the blood samples of the appellant’s son and his friends who were sitting in the backseat of the car. The allegations being serious as against the appellant herein, this Court may not grant the relief as sought for by the appellant as it would jeopardize and frustrate the investigation as well as the trial.

In the circumstances, learned standing counsel for the respondent contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed.

We have considered the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the material on record as well as the fact that in similar cases, this Court had already granted the relief of bail to the other co- accused viz., Crl.A.No.627, 628 and 629 of 2026 dated 02.02.2026; Crl.A.NO.973 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026; and Crl.A.No.1177 of 2026 dated 27.02.2026. We also note that the appellant herein has been in jail for the last twenty two months. In the circumstances, we find that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

We, therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:

“The appellant shall be produced before the concer