Porsche accident: Court denies bail to drunk driver, friend

Chennai: A week after an accident involving a Porsche car left an auto rickshaw driver dead, 12 others injured and at least seven three-wheelers smashed, a session court declined to release on bail racer Vikash Anand, who was behind the wheel, and his friend.
The duo's arguments that the accident was "purely mechanical", the car being not driven by him and police invoking the erroneous sections against him in consonance with the recent "fashion" failed to cut ice with the principal sessions judge who dismissed the bail pleas of Vikash Anand and T Charankumar's on Monday.
Police said both were drunk, and booked them under Sections 304(II) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if the act is done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 109 (abetment of an offence), 114 (abettor being present at the time of offence) of the IPC along with the relevant sections of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) (TNPPDL) Act and Motor Vehicles Act. Police said 67% alcohol was found in blood of the duo.
He said at 3am on September 19, the car lost control while trying to avoid hitting a boulder, and hit the auto rickshaws. "The accident was caused due to boulder and puncture of front wheel. Even no expert driver could stop the vehicle when the front tyre was punctured," he said.
Going on the offensive against police he said: "Nowadays it is a fashion to register the accident cases in Section 304 (II) and 308IPC...for the purpose of getting over media." He did not drive the car, and it was the first instance of filing a case against the co-passengers, said the petition. His friend and co-passenger, T Charankumar's bail petition, which was also rejected, said an inebriated Anand was driving the car, and he was only a co-passenger.
The prosecutor said the duo was in an inebriated at the time of accident, which caused the death of an auto driver and injured 12 others. One of the injured was critical. It was Sharankumar, who had incited the offence. The accident had caused a loss of property worth 20 lakh. While counsel for Anand said he was a college student, and was ready to pay fine, counsel for Charankumar said he had no connection with the offence