Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Ambadas Danve on Wednesday asked Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis whether his visit to Pune following a car crash incident was aimed at shielding the investigative agencies in the case.

He also alleged that Fadnavis visited Pune only after there was an uproar on social media platforms over the incident.

A Porsche car allegedly driven by a 17-year-old, who the police claim was drunk at the time, fatally knocked down two motorcycle-borne software engineers in Kalyani Nagar in Pune city in the early hours of Sunday.

Amid an outrage over the accident, Fadnavis, who holds the home portfolio, made a surprise visit to the Pune Police commissionerate on Tuesday to review the case, and later addressed the media.

Danve said in a post on X, "Was Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis' visit to Pune meant to hide the blunders of the investigative agencies. Only after there was an uproar on social media platforms that Fadnavis went to Pune or else he would been spotted doing election campaign in Odisha or Delhi."

"Where was Fadnavis when a relative of a senior official deliberately hit a woman with his car in Thane. She had to a court in the case. So the question arises for whose benefit Fadnavis came to Pune?" the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Council said.

Amid allegations that local NCP MLA Sunil Tingre tried to put pressure on the Pune police in connection with this case, Danve asked the legislator why he went to the police station in the middle of the night if the details of a case could be taken on the phone.

It is Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, who should provide answers to these questions, the Sena (UBT) leader said.

The car accident claimed the lives of Anish Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, both 24-year-old IT professionals hailing from Madhya Pradesh and working in Pune. After the car crash, the police registered a case against the teenager's father under sections 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 75 deals with "wilful neglect of a child or exposing a child to mental or physical illnesses" while section 77 deals with supplying a child with intoxicating liquor or drugs.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.