TEHSIL Police on Thursday received yet another jolt with Additional Sessions Judge S U Hake dismissing two separate revision petitions filed by them to take prime accused Ritu alias Ritika Dinesh Maloo in Ram Jhula hit-n-run case into custody by cancelling her bail and challenging the two orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) court. Earlier, JMFC Archana Khedkar-Garad had twice rejected the pleas of the prosecution for allowing Tehsil Police to re-arrest Ritu Maloo in the case. Cops wanted permission to re-arrest Ritu Maloo who, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, drove her Mercedes car in a rash and negligent manner and collided with an Activa scooter killing two young men -- Mohd Hussain Gulam Mustafa and Mohd Ateef Mohd Zia -- in the small hours of February 25. Tehsil Police had arrested Ritu on charges under Section 304(A), 279, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle (MV) Act. Next day, police produced Ritu before the JMFC Court and sought her magisterial custody remand (MCR). The court granted her bail after she was granted MCR on the same day. Police then added Sections 304, 427 of the IPC and 185 of MV Act in the matter on March 2. On March 7, the police applied for permission to arrest Ritu by cancelling her bail.

 

On April 3, the JMFC Court rejected the prosecution’s application on merit after hearing both sides. The police then moved the Sessions Court against the JMFC court’s order and its hearing was kept on July 12. Ritu then moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail which turned down her plea on May 24. She moved the High Court for anticipatory bail but it was turned down. Finally, she surrendered before the Tehsil Police. The cops sought her police custody at JMFC court on the following day. The court, however, released Ritu terming her arrest ‘unlawful,’ apart from passing stricture against the investigating agency. However, police filed a revision petition at the Sessions Court against the JMFC court’s order which termed her arrest as unconstitutional.

 

The court had reasoned that She should have been arrested only after her bail was revoked by the court that originally granted it. This procedural step was not followed which rendered her arrest illegal. Surprisingly, the prosecution then withdrew its revision application filed against the order of the JMFC from Sessions Court and again sought permission from the JMFC Court to re-arrest her. The JMFC court again rejected the prosecution plea after defence counsel Adv Chandrashekhar Jaltare pointed out that the JMFC court had no power to review its own order. The defence lawyer also argued that such moves by the prosecution were not tenable in the eyes of the law and amounted to vexatious litigation. Adv Jaltare had stated that it was expected that the prosecution should follow the process of law and restrain itself from filing such vexatious applications. Subsequently, the JMFC court for the second time had turned down the prosecution’s application to re-arrest Ritu. However, the prosecution filed two revisions before the Sessions Court and maintained the same grounds in a bid to justify their grounds. Strongly opposing the revision applications for cancellation of accused Ritu’s bail by challenging the JMFC’s orders, Adv Jaltare stated that such move of the prosecution was in an irresponsible manner reflecting total unprofessionalism. Finally, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision petitions. Defence counsel Adv Jaltare was assisted by Adv Milind Chaurasia and Adv Indrajeet Ghagarkar.