While hearing bail pleas in the Pune Porsche accident case, the Supreme Court openly questioned parental accountability when minors are given cars, money, and freedom without control. The Court warned that such neglect costs innocent lives and reflects a deeper social failure.
Drunk Driving: Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India made strong oral observations on parental responsibility while hearing bail pleas related to the 2024 Pune Porsche accident in which two innocent persons lost their lives. The remarks came after the Court dictated an order granting bail to three accused alleged to have conspired to swap blood samples following the incident.
While granting bail, the Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan clearly shifted focus to the role of parents who provide cars and money to their children without supervision or accountability.
Highlighting the gravity of the case and the alleged attempts to cover up the offence, Justice Nagarathna stated:
“We have much to say on this. Two innocent lives were lost and then all these machinations. But the only thing in your favour is that there is a long incarceration. So liberty versus all that, ultimately.”
The Court made it clear that bail was granted only on the limited ground of personal liberty due to prolonged custody, not because the allegations were weak.
At the same time, the Court consciously restrained itself from making detailed findings, clarifying that such observations could affect the fairness of the ongoing trial.
Emphasising parental responsibility, Justice Nagarathna observed:
“Father and mother are to be blamed for not having control over their children. If we say anything on that line we are only afraid that it may prejudice the trial against these appellants.”
The Court also criticised the growing culture where celebration is linked to substance use and reckless driving, noting the human cost of such behaviour.
Justice Nagarathna remarked:
“Celebration is not on the basis of substance and then going in a top speed and resulting in killing of innocent people on the road or innocent people sleeping on the road.”
The observation underlined that reckless acts by privileged youth often end with irreversible damage to ordinary families.
Justice Nagarathna further noted that such incidents are not isolated. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the mother of the deceased woman, pointed out that these cases often follow a predictable pattern. He stated:
“Get some poor driver to take the rap saying we were not driving that person was driving, replace blood samples, say no alcohol, 3 years and go.”
The Court agreed that this disturbing pattern has been seen earlier as well.
Responding to this, Justice Nagarathna stressed the need for stronger accountability, stating:
“The law has to catch up on these people. Most importantly the parents are responsible for handing over the vehicle to the children and giving them sufficient funds to have a gala time.”
The remark indirectly highlighted how responsibility often stops at the child, while those who enabled the behaviour escape scrutiny.
The Court also reflected on the larger social issue behind such tragedies. Justice Nagarathna observed:
“This is the problem. Because parents have no time to talk to the children, have a dialogue with them and spend time with the children. So what is the substitute? Money, ATM card. So they go on their own under mobile phone.”
The statement pointed to a deeper breakdown of parental involvement, replaced by unchecked financial access and absence of guidance.
These observations were made while hearing bail pleas filed by Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad, who are accused of conspiring to swap blood samples of two minors who were seated in the back of the car at the time of the accident. The Bench granted them bail, taking note that they had already spent around 18 months in custody, while clearly leaving all questions on facts and guilt to be decided during trial.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Referred / Implied In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Explanation | Relevance to This Case |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (earlier IPC) | Section 304 / 304A (causing death by negligence – legacy reference) | Deals with causing death due to rash or negligent acts | The accident resulted in the death of two innocent persons due to reckless driving |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita / IPC | Section 201 | Causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information | Alleged blood sample swapping and attempts to destroy or manipulate evidence |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita / IPC | Section 211 | False charge of offence made with intent to injure | Pattern highlighted where blame is shifted to another person |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita / IPC | Section 34 / 120B | Common intention / criminal conspiracy | Allegations of conspiracy among accused to cover up the offence |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 439 | Special powers of High Court or Supreme Court regarding bail | Bail granted due to long incarceration, not on merits |
| Constitution of India | Article 21 | Protection of life and personal liberty | Bail granted balancing liberty against seriousness of offence |
| Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 | General parental responsibility principles | Imposes duty of care and supervision on parents | Court’s oral observations squarely placed moral and social responsibility on parents |
Case Details
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
- Case Title: Ashish Satish Mittal v. State of Maharashtra and connected cases
- Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal(s) No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 21370 of 2025). Along with SLP (Crl.) No. 41 of 2026 & SLP (Crl.) No. 1270 of 2026
- FIR Details: FIR No. 306 of 2024
- Police Station: Yerwada
- District: Pune City
- Date of FIR: 19.05.2024
- Impugned Order: Order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Bail Application Nos. 2850 of 2025, 2470 of 2025 and 3751 of 2024
- Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
- Date of Supreme Court Order: 02 February 2026
Counsels
- For Petitioners / Appellants:
- Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Senior Advocate
- Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Senior Advocate
- Along with multiple Advocates-on-Record and assisting advocates as listed in the order
- For Respondent (State of Maharashtra):
- Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate
- Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
- Other assisting advocates as recorded
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clearly acknowledged that reckless acts by minors are often enabled by parents who provide cars, money, and freedom without accountability.
- Bail was granted due to prolonged incarceration, not because the allegations were weak—highlighting how procedure often outweighs justice for victims.
- Attempts to manipulate evidence, like blood sample swapping, expose how influence and privilege distort criminal accountability.
- Innocent lives lost on the road receive sympathy, but families—often dependent on male earners—are left with irreversible damage and no immediate relief.
- The Court’s observations reveal a deeper social failure where parental neglect is normalised, yet the consequences are paid by unsuspecting men and families.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.