Police Hunt for Ritika Malu as High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail
In a significant development, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has denied the anticipatory bail plea of Ritika alias Ritu Malu, who is currently absconding. Ritika Malu, 39, is accused of fatally injuring two youngsters while driving a Mercedes car under the influence of alcohol on Ram Jhula on February 25 this year.
Ritika Malu, a prominent business figure from Nagpur, now faces a serious predicament as she remains at large, evading arrest. Her conduct during the investigation, including attempts to divert the investigation and lack of cooperation with the investigating agency, played a crucial role in the court's decision.
"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 has not cooperated with the investigating agency. As such, the applicant is not entitled to any relief by way of granting anticipatory bail," stated Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in the order.
The incident that led to this legal battle occurred when Ritika Malu allegedly drove her Mercedes car in a rash and negligent manner under the influence of alcohol, colliding with an Activa scooter carrying Mohd Hussain Gulam Mustafa and Mohd Ateef Mohd Zia. Both riders sustained fatal injuries, with one dying on the spot and the other succumbing to injuries while receiving treatment.
The prosecution argued that Ritika Malu's actions not only violated traffic laws but also resulted in the loss of two lives due to her alleged intoxicated driving. During the bail hearing, her 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 argued that the alcohol content found in Ritika Malu’s blood was within permissible limits under the Motor Vehicles Act, questioning the applicability of Section 185.
Additionally, Ritika Malu’s defense team pointed out discrepancies in the prosecution’s version of events, citing CCTV footage and eyewitness testimonies that indicated potential inconsistencies in how the accident occurred. They argued that the evidence did not conclusively prove culpability beyond reasonable doubt, thus justifying anticipatory bail to prevent potential unjust incarceration pending trial.
However, the State’s Public Prosecutor, D. V. Chauhan, opposed granting anticipatory bail, citing the severity of the charges and Ritika Malu's alleged deliberate attempts to mislead the investigation. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting that Ritika Malu was aware of the risks associated with drunken driving and referenced legal precedents from the Supreme Court regarding the dangers and legal consequences of driving under the influence.
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 emphasized 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.
As Ritika Malu remains absconding, the focus now shifts to the police and their efforts to apprehend her. The community and legal observers are keenly watching to see if the authorities will be able to locate and arrest her, bringing her to justice for the charges she faces.
-t-thumb.jpeg)
