Bombay High Court Refuses Pre-Arrest Bail To Woman Accused Of Mowing Down Two From Her Mercedes, Says No Prudent Person Will Drink And Drive
No prudent person will ever drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, said the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently while denying anticipatory bail to a female Human Resource (HR) professional accused of mowing down two young men while driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol.Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in her June 26 order, noted from the material on...
No prudent person will ever drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, said the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently while denying anticipatory bail to a female Human Resource (HR) professional accused of mowing down two young men while driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol.
Single-judge Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke in her June 26 order, noted from the material on record, that the female professional had consumed "rum and vodka" from two different restaurants in the night of February 25, and within 5 minutes, covered a total of 3.8 kilometers distance, indicating that she was rashly driving the vehicle.
"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 death of two persons for which her knowledge can be attributed. The person who sat on steering wheel after consumption of alcohol and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner can be attributed knowledge," the judge said.
Under the Indian Penal Law, knowledge is an awareness on the part of the person concerned indicating his state of mind. The knowledge will be slightly on a higher pedestal than reason to believe, the court added.
"The driving of the car in a drunken condition and resulting knowledge of consequence are sufficient to attract the provisions. 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," the judge said while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea.
The single-judge was hearing the plea filed by one Ritu Maloo, who statedly on February 25, dashed a two-wheeler from behind while driving her Mercedes car in high speed. Soon after the accident, it is alleged that the woman who was returning from a club along with another female friend, fled from the spot. She was however, traced and arrested within hours of the accident, in which two youth lost their lives.
During investigation, it came to light that the woman had consumed alcohol. The counsel appearing for her, however, argued that even if allegations are accepted, it was merely a case of an accident and that the blood test reports revealed that she was found to have consumed alcohol, but the same was within permissible limits. It was thus argued that her custodial interrogation was not needed and therefore, she should be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
On the other hand, the prosecution highlighted that the applicant covered a distance of 3.8 kilometers within 3 minutes, which indicated her rash and negligent driving. The prosecution further argued that the applicant violated the "zero tolerance" policy of the State and after dashing the two-wheeler, she fled the spot instead of rushing the injured persons to the hospital.
The bench, after hearing the contentions, noted that there was ample material on record to prove the gravity of the offence, and also the manner in which the accident took place. It therefore, rejected the pre-arrest bail plea of the applicant.
Case Title: Ritu Dinesh Maloo vs State of Maharashtra.