Yesterday, On 26th June, A woman HR consultant denied bail after her Mercedes collided with a scooter, resulting in two fatalities. The court highlighted that she was intoxicated at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the court noted her lack of remorse as she left the scene immediately after the incident.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court denied anticipatory bail to a Nagpur woman charged with drunk driving resulting in the deaths of two people. The court emphasized that a reasonable person would not drive under the influence of alcohol.
Ritu Maloo, a Human Resource consultant and company owner, allegedly drove her Mercedes while intoxicated and collided with a motorcycle, causing the deaths of two individuals near Ram Jhula bridge in Nagpur in February.
Maloo initially charged with causing death by negligence, rash and negligent driving, and causing hurt by a rash act. Following the deaths of the two victims, the police upgraded the charges to include Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code. Although Maloo initially granted bail, the police sought to re-arrest her, leading her to seek pre-arrest bail from the court. Her request was denied by the Nagpur Sessions Court, prompting her to approach the High Court.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke remarked that driving under the influence of alcohol is serious misconduct and unacceptable.
The judge further stated,
“When a motor vehicle is driven after consuming alcohol, road accidents become a predictable consequence.”
The bench stated,
“In such circumstances, attributing knowledge to the driver that death could be a likely outcome of drunken driving is legally justified,”
The bench added,
“A sensible individual would not operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,”
Maloo argued that she had consumed alcohol within legal limits and that the incident merely an accident. She maintained that, no need for custodial interrogation in her case.
The bench, referencing CCTV footage, pointed out that the accused had travelled 3.8 kilometers in three to five minutes on the night of the incident.
The court observed,
“The applicant drove the car while intoxicated and collided with the Activa bike, resulting in the deaths of two individuals. Without expressing any remorse, the applicant fled the scene,”
The bench also noted that Maloo left the accident site and later attempted to tell the police that she was not the driver. The court stated that the nature of the accident was sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 304 of the IPC.