Justice B. V. Nagarathna on Monday flagged a growing social concern, observing that money was increasingly being used as a substitute for parenting, with minors being given cars, alcohol and unchecked freedom, often with tragic consequences. She said the Supreme Court was repeatedly encountering cases marked by reckless celebrations, lack of parental supervision and subsequent attempts to manipulate investigations after loss of life.
These remarks came as the Supreme Court granted bail to three accused allegedly involved in a conspiracy to swap blood samples following the 2024 Pune Porsche accident that killed two people.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered the release of Ashish Satish Mittal, Aditya Avinash Sood and Amar Santhosh Gaikwad, noting that they had already undergone incarceration for over 18 months. The bench directed that bail be granted, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.
The three were accused of conspiring to replace blood samples of two juveniles who were seated in the back of the Porsche at the time of the accident. The prosecution alleged that the samples were swapped to conceal alcohol consumption, thereby undermining the investigation into the fatal crash. The accused have been booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including forgery and destruction of evidence, as well as under the Prevention of Corruption Act for alleged bribery.
According to the prosecution, Ashish Mittal is a friend of the father of one of the juveniles, Aditya Sood is the father of the other juvenile passenger, and Amar Gaikwad acted as a middleman who allegedly received Rs 3 lakh to facilitate the replacement of blood samples.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the accused, argued that there were no allegations whatsoever against the two juveniles seated in the back of the car. He further contended that the accident was not caused by any juvenile passenger and that the driver was, in fact, driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
It was also pointed out to the Court that the juvenile accused of causing the accident while allegedly driving under the influence was already facing proceedings before the Juvenile Justice Board.
Opposing the grant of bail, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the mother of one of the deceased victims, described the case as a classic example of undermining the entire criminal justice system. He submitted that the alleged conspiracy did not end with the accident but extended into a coordinated effort to manipulate medical evidence and derail the investigation. Such conduct, he argued, struck at the very root of public confidence in the justice delivery system and warranted continued custody.
While granting bail, the Bench made it clear that the order was being passed primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and not on the merits of the allegations. The court refrained from making detailed findings that could prejudice the ongoing trial.
However, Justice Nagarathna made strong oral observations on parental responsibility and the broader social context in which such incidents occur. She remarked that allowing minors to consume alcohol, providing them with vehicles, and facilitating reckless celebrations reflected a deep-seated social problem.
“Father and mother are to be blamed for not having control over their children,” Justice Nagarathna said, cautioning that detailed observations on this aspect were being avoided only to prevent prejudice to the trial. She lamented that parental disengagement was frequently substituted with money, ATM cards and unchecked freedom, leaving minors to navigate dangerous choices on their own.
“The law has to catch up with these people,” she added, stressing that responsibility does not end at the point of handing over a vehicle but extends to ensuring that children are guided, supervised and held accountable.