HC denies anticipatory bail to Ritu Malu
| Date :27-Jun-2024 |
Staff Reporter
In a major jolt to Ritika alias Ritu Malu, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has rejected her plea of anticipatory bail. Ritika (39) is accused of mowing down two youngsters on Ram Jhula while driving a Mercedes car under the influence of liquor on February 25 this year. According to the court order, Ritika Malu, a resident of Nagpur and a prominent figure in the business community, faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Motor Vehicles Act. “Considering the material collected during the investigation, the conduct of the applicant during the investigation shows that she not only attempted to divert the investigation but also she has not cooperated the investigating agency. As such, the applicant is not entitled for any relief by way of granting anticipatory bail,” stated Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in the order.
The accident occurred when Ritika Malu allegedly drove her Mercedes car in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol and collided with an Activa scooter carrying two persons. Both riders, Mohd Hussain Gulam Mustafa and Mohd Ateef Mohd Zia, sustained fatal injuries—one died on the spot, and the other succumbed to injuries while receiving treatment. The prosecution argued that Ritika Malu’s actions not only violated traffic laws but also led to the loss of two lives due to her alleged intoxicated driving. During the bail hearing, Ritika Malu’s legal counsel, represented by Senior Counsel S V Manohar, contended that the charges were based on circumstantial evidence and that the application of Section 304 of the IPC was unwarranted. They stressed that the alcohol content found in Ritika Malu’s blood, as per the medical report, was within permissible limits under the Motor Vehicles Act and went on to suggest that the application of section 185 was also disputable. Furthermore, Ritika Malu’s defense team pointed out discrepancies in the prosecution’s version of events and highlighted that the CCTV footage and eyewitness testimonies indicated potential inconsistencies in how the accident took place.
They argued that the evidence did not conclusively prove culpability beyond reasonable doubt, thus warranting anticipatory bail to prevent potential unjust incarceration pending trial. In contrast, the State’s Public Prosecutor, D V Chauhan, argued against granting anticipatory bail and cited the severity of the charges and the alleged deliberate attempts by Ritika Malu to mislead the investigation. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Ritika Malu was aware of the risks associated with drunken driving and cited legal precedents and observations from the Supreme Court regarding the dangers and legal consequences of driving under the influence of alcohol. The court’s decision to deny anticipatory bail hinged on several factors: the gravity of the charges, the potential flight risk, and the prima facie evidence indicating culpability. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke underlined that while custodial interrogation alone may not be sufficient grounds to deny bail, the nature of the charges and the likelihood of the applicant fleeing justice necessitated the denial of anticipatory bail at this stage.