Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years

Bombay High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in Drunken Driving Case: Knowledge of Consequence is Sufficient

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Bombay High Court rejects anticipatory bail application of Ritu Maloo, emphasizing the legal implications of driving under the influence and subsequent evasion of responsibility.

In a significant judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court, Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke denied the anticipatory bail application of Ritu Maloo, who was implicated in a drunken driving incident resulting in the deaths of two individuals. The court stressed the gravity of the offense, the prima facie evidence of negligence, and the applicant's conduct post-incident.

The applicant, Ritu Maloo, was involved in a vehicular accident on February 25, 2024, where she allegedly drove a car under the influence of alcohol, hitting a two-wheeler from behind and causing the deaths of its rider, Mohd. Hussain Gulam Mustafa, and pillion rider, Mohd. Ateef Mohd. Zia. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, following further investigation, more severe charges under Sections 304 and 427 of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act were added.

The court meticulously examined various pieces of evidence, including CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and blood alcohol reports. The CCTV footage revealed that Maloo drove recklessly, covering 3.8 kilometers in under three minutes and colliding with the Activa scooter. Eyewitness accounts corroborated the severity of the crash and the subsequent evasion by Maloo and her companion.

The statements of the eyewitnesses at the scene and the staff at the club where Maloo consumed alcohol were critical. The court noted that these testimonies consistently described Maloo's impaired state and reckless driving. Further, attempts by Maloo to mislead the investigation by providing conflicting accounts about who was driving the car were highlighted.

The court elaborated on the legal principles related to anticipatory bail and the gravity of the offense under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Justice Joshi-Phalke emphasized, "Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and causing death reflects knowledge of the probable consequences, making Section 304 Part II applicable." The judgment also referred to various precedents, including the landmark cases of Alister Anthony Pareira vs. State of Maharashtra and State through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Nanda, which established that drunken driving with resulting fatalities should attract severe penal provisions.

Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke remarked, "A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The manner in which the applicant has driven the car, which appears from the CCTV footage, caused the death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed."

The Bombay High Court's decision to deny anticipatory bail to Ritu Maloo underscores the judiciary's firm stance against drunken driving and the evasion of legal responsibilities. This judgment sends a clear message about the serious legal consequences of such reckless behavior and reinforces the importance of adherence to road safety laws. The court's emphasis on prima facie evidence and the broader implications of driving under the influence is expected to influence future cases, thereby strengthening the legal framework for addressing similar offenses.

 

Date of Decision: June 26, 2024

Ritu vs. State of Maharashtra

Similar News