On November 5, the Supreme Court denied bail to Arunkumar Devnath Singh, the father of a minor co-accused seated beside the principal accused Child in Conflict with Law (CCL)—who purportedly operated the vehicle at high speed on May 19, 2024, resulting in the deaths of two youths in the Porsche incident in Kalyani Nagar, Pune.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, sitting as a bench, affirmed the Bombay High Court’s rejection of Singh’s request for anticipatory bail on October 23.
Initially, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija argued that there exists “prejudice” against the petitioner, who is still enduring a “media trial”.
Justice Dhulia remarked, “It happens.” On the other hand, Justice Amanullah asserted that the Court does not consider the prejudice associated with a case.
Justice Dhulia questioned for clarity on the petitioner’s relationship to the driver-CCL. Makhija said, “No, I am the father of the friend who was sitting at back, who had nothing to do with the [alleged incident]. They were only partying together. He wasn’t driving.”
The petitioner was also represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, he presented to the court through para.26 of the bail order, which reads: “The applicant has failed to make out a case in his favour for this Court to exercise discretion for granting anticipatory bail to him. The question of law raised on behalf of the applicant with regard to the very applicability of Section 467 read with Section 464 of the IPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is answered against the applicant. This Court finds that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie made out against the applicant.”
Luthra contended that, even under the most adverse circumstances, Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable. Section 464 and other provisions are not applicable.
Makhija further requested that the Court clarify that the observations made in paragraph 26 are solely intended for the purpose of bail. She remarked, “[Then], I am doomed in the trial.” Nevertheless, the Court declined to intervene in the decision made by the High Court.
According to Justice Dhulia whatever is being argued is a matter of trial. The court said, “You may have unshakingly case in the trial.”
Further Justice Amanullah added: “Law is common to everyone. Can’t make a distinction. For these types of facts, we would not have [given] 20 seconds…”
Background of the case
According to High Court Judge Manish Pitale, Arunkumar Singh, the applicant, bribed the doctors at Sassoon Hospital in Pune shortly after the accident to have his son’s blood samples replaced with those of another co-accused. This was done to make sure that the medical records did not show that his son had any alcohol in his blood.
Justice Pitale added “A perusal of the material that has come on record during the course of investigation prima facie indicates that blood sample of the minor son of the applicant was replaced with the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. This was at the behest of the applicant himself, in order to create a document that would ensure that the minor son of the applicant goes scot free,”.
The co-accused individuals, specifically the parents of the child involved in legal conflict, who was operating the Porsche vehicle, similarly engaged in the act of substituting the child’s blood sample with that of the mother. This action was taken to fabricate a document aimed at exonerating the child, as noted by the judge.
Singh contended that the provisions of section 464, (making false document by deception), are not applicable to his case. He argued that the Alcohol Examination Certificate (AEC) should not be classified as a document created under ‘deception,’ as both the Doctor and the Assistant Chemical Analyser were complicit in the conspiracy to alter the blood samples and were fully aware of the exchange of these samples.
Justice Pitale observed that the deception involved mislabeling the blood sample as that of the applicant’s minor son, when it actually belonged to co-accused Ashish Mittal.
The court noted “the applicant, being the father of the said minor son, was part of the conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC to bring about such deception by affixing of label to show the blood sample to be that of the minor son while it was the blood sample of co-accused Ashish Mittal. It is the said label affixed on the blood sample that was the basis of deception, read with the documents created in conspiracy with co-accused Dr. Halnor. Hence, the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that blood sample is not a ‘document’ pales into insignificance,”.
The judge stated that the Assistant Chemical Analyser was misled, which resulted in his lack of awareness regarding the nature of the alteration, leading to the signing, sealing, and execution of the Alcohol Examination Certificate.
The court said, “viewed from this angle, the contention raised on behalf of the State that the applicant was very much part of the conspiracy in committing the offence under Section 464 of the IPC, holds good. There is a strong prima facie case made out against the applicant for offence committed under Section 467 of the IPC read with Section 464 thereof. The said document clearly answers the definition of ‘valuable security’ under Section 30 of the IPC, as it certainly created a right in the accused minor son of the applicant of portraying innocence,”.
The bench noted that the primary argument of the prosecution is that all individuals in the Porsche, including the applicant’s son and the minor in conflict with the law who was driving, were intoxicated. In this condition, the vehicle was operated at a high speed, resulting in a collision with the motorbike on which the victims were riding, leading to their fatalities.
The court noted this while rejecting Singh’s plea for anticipatory bail “there is substance in the contention raised by the Special Public Prosecutor that the applicant remaining absconding has 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 the applicant with the co-accused persons, including the doctors who were bribed for replacing the blood samples,”
Luthra pressed for withdrawing the SLP however the Court dismissed it.
Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Vibha Datta Makhija appear as petitioner.
Couse title : Arunkumar Devnath Singh vs State of Maharashtra SLP(Crl) No. 15128/2024