10 hours Ago By Asseem Shaikh
Pune: Pune police "planted evidence" to create a Rs2 lakh bribery case against the labour contractor and his jeweller friend arrested on the charge of blood test manipulation related to the Porsche Taycan car crash on May 19, 2024, the defence lawyers submitted before a special court on Wednesday. The labour contractor's son was among the two minors accompanying the 17-year-old driver of the high-end car at the time of the accident, which claimed the lives of two young software engineers at Kalyaninagar. Police's case is that the jeweller friend gave his blood sample to swap with that of the contractor's minor son.
You Can Also Check: Pune AQI | Weather in Pune | Bank Holidays in Pune | Public Holidays in Pune On Wednesday, defence lawyers Abid Mulani and Sitesh Sharma, while countering state's arguments opposing bail to the two accused, said their clients never gave the money to manipulate the blood tests as claimed by police. The lawyers argued that the bail pleas ought to be accepted on the grounds that the duo's arrest was illegal and that they should be given parity with the teenage driver's mother, who was granted ad interim bail by the Supreme Court on April 22. The lawyers claimed that police planted the bribe money to create a false case of criminal conspiracy against their clients and played with the criminal justice system.
There is no evidence to suggest that the accused entered into a conspiracy with the co-accused in the crash case and swapped the blood samples of the minor boys at Sassoon General Hospital, the lawyers said. Special public prosecutor Shishir Hiray, who appeared before the court through videoconferencing, sought time until May 3 to counter the defence lawyer's arguments. After the court proceeding, assistant commissioner of police (crime) Ganesh Ingale told TOI that the allegations by the defence lawyers are false and baseless.
"There is evidence of bank statements and statements of witnesses to show that Rs2 lakh was paid to manipulate the blood sample reports of the minors. The grounds relating to arresting the accused were communicated to them in writing, and their signatures were taken on arrest forms that were part of the supplementary chargesheets." The accused cannot claim bail on the grounds of parity because the Supreme Court order in the teenager's mother's case is an interlocutory order, not a final order, Ingale added.
.
