Pune Porsche Accident Case: Rich People Vs Aam Aadmi
On the night of May 18th, a horrific incident in Pune left two young lives lost and sparked national outrage. It’s a story that exposes the gaping divide between the rich and the common people in India and highlights the systematic corruption that too often allows the wealthy to escape justice.
The Night of the Tragedy
Aneesh, a 24-year-old man, and Ashwini, a 24-year-old woman, both from Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, were out partying with friends in Pune. They worked together at an IT company in the city and had gone to a popular club called Ballr that night. Just a few kilometers away, Vedant Agarwal, the 17-year-old son of a wealthy real estate developer, was partying with his friends at Cosie, a high-end pub.
By the end of the night, Vedant and his friends had racked up a bill of ₹48,000 on alcohol, despite Vedant being underage and much younger than the legal drinking age. After leaving Cosie, Vedant and two friends headed to another club, Blak, in Marriott Suites. By 2 am, Vedant was drunk but still got behind the wheel of his electric Porsche Taycan. His driver was also in the car.
At around 2:30 am, Aneesh and Ashwini were heading home on a motorcycle, returning from their night out. As they made a U-turn on Kalyani Nagar Airport Road, Vedant’s Porsche sped towards them, flying down the road at speeds between 160 to 200 kmph, according to various reports. The collision was catastrophic, and Aneesh and Ashwini tragically lost their lives on the spot.
A System Rigged for the Rich
In the moments after the crash, onlookers managed to detain Vedant and his friends, eventually handing him over to the police. But the sequence of events that followed exposed the deep-rooted corruption and privilege that often shields the wealthy in India.
Vedant Agarwal, despite being underage and involved in a deadly accident, was taken to the Yerwada police station, where within just an hour, MLA Sunil Tingre arrived at 3 am to provide “support.” Tingre later claimed he did not influence the case, merely stating that he had known the family for 30 years and was responding to a call from Vedant’s father, Vishal Agarwal.
The cozy relationship between the rich and the powerful was clear when, during Vedant’s detention, a Mercedes arrived at the police station, and a man was seen carrying 6-7 pizza boxes inside. Reporters present outside noted that the police station seemed to be more of a social gathering than the scene of a serious investigation.
The FIR Controversy: Negligence or Culpable Homicide?
The FIR against Vedant was filed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code—death by negligence. This section carries a maximum punishment of just two years in jail. However, many argue that Vedant should have been charged under Section 304, which covers culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Section 304 implies that the accused was aware their actions could lead to death, even if they didn’t have the intention to kill. The punishment under Section 304 is much stricter, with up to 10 years imprisonment.
The critical question here is: Shouldn’t a 17-year-old, fully aware that drunk driving could lead to death, be held accountable for this tragic accident under Section 304? Driving a car at such high speeds while intoxicated in a densely populated city is not just negligence—it’s reckless behavior that leads to fatal consequences.
A Web of Corruption
If the FIR filing was a point of controversy, what happened next was even more shocking. Vedant’s blood alcohol test wasn’t conducted until 11 am the following morning—eight hours after the incident. Despite consuming large amounts of alcohol, the blood test came back negative. How? Because the real blood sample was allegedly switched with a clean one.
According to a report by NDTV, the Agarwal family paid ₹300,000 to two doctors—Dr. Ajay Taware and Dr. Shrihari Halnor—to swap the samples. Both doctors were later arrested, but the tampering had already undermined the investigation.
The Driver Takes the Blame
In another attempt to manipulate the case, Vedant’s mother reportedly requested the family’s driver to take the blame for the accident. Vedant’s grandfather even threatened the driver, pressuring him to confess that he was driving the car that night. Fortunately, the many witnesses to the accident made it impossible for the family to pull off this stunt.
A Slap on the Wrist: The Shocking Bail Decision
Perhaps the most infuriating development came when the Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to Vedant. As part of his punishment, Vedant was asked to study road safety rules, prepare a presentation, and write a 300-word essay on road accidents and their prevention.
Yes, you read that right. Vedant, a rich underage teenager who caused the deaths of two innocent people, was asked to write an essay as punishment. This sparked nationwide outrage, with people taking to social media to express their disbelief and anger. How could such a lenient punishment be given for such a serious crime?
Public pressure led the police to request that Vedant be tried as an adult and to upgrade the charges from Section 304A to Section 304. But the Juvenile Justice Board referred the case to the Sessions Court, which in turn instructed the police to re-approach the Juvenile Justice Board for this modification.
Can the Law Deliver Justice?
There’s a legal technicality that makes it difficult to deliver a strict punishment in Vedant’s case. Despite being just four months shy of his 18th birthday, Vedant is still considered a minor under the law. In 2015, after the Nirbhaya case, the Juvenile Justice Act was amended to allow juveniles aged 16-18 who commit heinous crimes to be tried as adults. However, because Section 304 does not mandate a minimum sentence, it doesn’t fall under the category of a “heinous crime.”
This loophole has been exploited before. In 2016, a juvenile in Delhi, just four days short of turning 18, ran over and killed a 32-year-old man. Despite being a repeat offender, the court ruled that he should be tried as a minor. A similar case unfolded in Kanpur, where a 15-year-old boy killed two people in a motor accident, only to commit another fatal hit-and-run months later. In both instances, the juveniles received lenient sentences due to their age. Read Also: Itachi Uchiha
Holding Parents Accountable
If the law cannot punish minors like Vedant with the full severity of the law, then perhaps the responsibility should fall on the parents. Parents who knowingly allow their underage children to drive without a license and expose them to dangerous situations must be held accountable for their negligence.
In this case, the police have lodged an FIR against Vedant’s father, Vishal Agarwal, under various sections of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Juvenile Justice Act for willful neglect and supplying intoxicating substances to a minor. However, Vishal Agarwal attempted to flee authorities but was arrested in Aurangabad.
A Broken System, A Call for Unity
This case sheds light on a deeply flawed system where the rich and powerful can often buy their way out of trouble. From underage drinking to bribing doctors, and manipulating blood samples to receiving lenient bail conditions, Vedant Agarwal’s story exposes the privileges that shield the wealthy from accountability.
For the rest of us—ordinary, law-abiding citizens—the story is different. A common man faces bulldozers tearing down his home, despite legal protections, police brutality, and accidents caused by the reckless actions of the privileged.
The Power of Collective Voices
If there’s one glimmer of hope in this tragedy, it’s the collective outrage of the people. Public pressure has forced the police to take stricter action, arrest the corrupt doctors, and challenge the lenient bail conditions. This case serves as a reminder that we must always raise our voices against injustice. Our unity is the only thing that can stand up against a corrupt system.
As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar once said, “Educate, Agitate, Organise.” We must continue to spread awareness, speak up, and fight for justice—not just for Aneesh and Ashwini, but for every common man who has ever been wronged by a broken system.
