Pune: The court of Special Judge U.M. Mudholkar remanded Aditya Avinash Sood (52) and Ashish Satish Mittal (37) to police custody till August 26.
The duo has been arrested by Pune Police Crime Branch on charges of conspiring with medical professionals to swap blood samples to protect the minor - who was driving the Porsche in an inebriated condition in Kalyani Nagar area of Pune.
Crime Branch arrested Aditya Avinash Sood, residing at Sopan Society, B.T. Kawade Road, Ghorpadi and Ashish Satish Mittal, a resident of Sky Belvedere Society, Viman Nagar.
The investigation revealed that after the accident, the two friends of the minor driver, who was driving a Porsche under the influence, were found to have consumed alcohol.
To mislead the authorities and shield these individuals, the accused Sood and Mittal reportedly colluded with construction businessman Vishal Surendrakumar Agarwal and the then-Chief Medical Officer of Sassoon Hospital's emergency department, Dr. Shrihari Halnor. They allegedly provided their own blood samples to pass them off as those of the minor driver.
The police are actively probing the involvement of additional accomplices, including those who facilitated the tampering and any potential bribes paid to execute the cover-up.
Assistant Police Commissioner Ganesh Ingle, who is leading the investigation, indicated that the probe would include a detailed examination of the accused's mobile phones and an inquiry into whether the original blood samples were destroyed.
Police are trying to find out who was present in Sassoon’s Ward No. 40 during the swapping of the blood samples, whether the original blood samples of the minor were destroyed, and will be conducting a technical examination of the accused’s mobile phones.
Special Public Prosecutor Shishir Hiray and Additional Public Prosecutor Anil Kumbhar requested police custody for the accused for this to be investigated.
The accused presented their defense through Advocate Abid Mulani, Advocate Seoul Shah, and Advocate Dhwani Shah. The defense counsel argued that their clients have no direct connection to the minor involved and requested judicial custody, asserting that the charges of evidence tampering and conspiracy are bailable and non-cognizable.
