Pune Porsche crash: SC grants bail to 3 accused
02 Feb 2026

The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to three accused in the Pune Porsche crash case. The incident, which took place in May 2024, resulted in the deaths of two young software engineers.

The accused, Aditya Sood, Ashish Mittal, and Santosh Gaikwad, had spent 18 months in custody before being granted bail, according to Livemint.

'Continued detention would greatly prejudice the accused'
Bail reasoning

The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that continued detention would greatly prejudice the accused.

The court noted there was no allegation against a juvenile passenger in the car and mentioned that even the driver faces a maximum punishment of three years for causing the accident.

What is the Porsche crash case?
Crash overview

The Pune Porsche crash occurred on May 19, 2024, around 2:30am in Kalyani Nagar.

A juvenile allegedly drove a Porsche under the influence of alcohol and crashed into a motorcycle, killing two software engineers, who were identified as Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta.

The juvenile's father, Vishal Agarwal, his wife, and associates are accused of conspiring with doctors at Sassoon Hospital to tamper with blood test results.

Accused persons and their roles
Tampering conspiracy

Santosh Gaikwad is accused of being a middleman in the blood sample tampering, allegedly receiving ₹3 lakh for his role.

Ashish Mittal is accused of providing his own blood sample to replace that of another juvenile present in the car.

Aditya Sood is accused of providing a blood sample on behalf of his son, who was not driving and isn't named as an accused.

Police investigations into the case are complete
Previous ruling

The Bombay High Court had earlier denied bail to the accused, citing concerns over possible witness tampering and interference with evidence.

The court noted that key witnesses were dependent on some of the accused, making it a "well-founded" concern.

However, before the Supreme Court, the accused argued their continued detention served no investigative purpose as police investigations were complete.