Nagpur: HC Refuses Ritika Malu Interim Pre-Arrest Bail

In a major setback to Ritika Dinesh Malu, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail. Malu is the main accused in the Ram Jhula accident case of February which claimed two lives. While hearing the bail application filed by Malu, a vacation bench headed by Justice Abhay Mantri issued notices to the state government, police commissioner and Tehsil police station with directions to file reply on June 13.

After the district and sessions judge R S Bhosle (Patil) rejected the pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused, she had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. Counsel for Malu, Adv Sukrut Sohoni argued that the Tehsil police had registered a case under section 279, 338, 304 (a) of the IPC along with section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act. The JMFC had granted her bail in that offence. However, police later added section 304 against Malu. Ninety days have passed, and police have completed their investigations. However police are yet to file a chargesheet, he pointed out while praying for anticipatory bail in the offence under section 304 of the IPC.

The assistant government pleader Adv Alap Palshikar and informant's counsel Adv Yusuf Jameel Sheikh told the court that the accused had violated the interim bail conditions imposed by the sessions court. Malu had left the city and even the state of Maharashtra without informing the police and had also not appeared before the police as directed by the court, the AGP said arguing that she should not be granted any relief.

Taking serious note of the arguments, the High Court stated that the applicant Malu had already enjoyed interim bail granted by the sessions court in section 304 of IPC case. The sessions court had refused to grant bail by recording reasons. The applicant had violated the bail conditions imposed by the sessions court, the high court mentioned while refusing to grant interim relief.

It may be recalled that Malu is an accused in an offence of drunken driving and causing death of Mohmmad Hussain Gulam Mustafa (34), of Nall Sahab Square, Mominpura and Mohammad Atif Mohammad Joya (32) of Jafar Nagar on the night of February 24, 2024. Following the accident, Malu and her friend Madhuri Shishir Sarda (37) who was accompanying her, had fled from the accident spot, it is alleged in the complaint. However, both women later surrendered and were arrested. Tehsil police had registered a case under section 279, 338, 304 (a) of the IPC along with section 184 of Motor Vehicle Act.

Initially police had registered an offence under section 304 (a) which was a bailable offence. Therefore Malu was granted bail by the JMFC court. Subsequently, when the blood sample report revealed that Malu was driving the car under the influence of alcohol, police added section 304 of IPC in the FIR.

The police had approached the JMFC, which granted the anticipatory bail, to inform it about the added section of 304 in the case. Police also sought custody of the accused Malu. However, the JMFC had rejected the application. Meanwhile, when the district and sessions court rejected Malu's bai