Ritika Maloo granted bail Defence counsel cites that State CID had failed to file chargesheet within 60 days of her arrest

 

 

 

IN A significant development in the Ram Jhula hit-and-run case, Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Archana Khedkar-Garad granted bail to prime accused Ritika Maloo, on Tuesday, after the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID) failed to file the chargesheet within the statutory 60-day period after her arrest. Ritika Maloo, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, was involved in a tragic accident on the early morning of February 25 when her Mercedes collided with an Activa scooter, leading to the deaths of two young men – Mohd Hussain Gulam Mustafa and Mohd Ateef Mohd Zia. A case under Sections 304 (A), 201,427 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 184, 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, was registered against Ritika Maloo, her husband Dinesh Bajrang Maloo, and another accused, Madhuri Sarda at Tehsil Police Station.

 

Section 304 (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the IPC was added to the crime during the course of investigation by police. Later, the High Court had entrusted further investigation to the State CID. Ritika Maloo was rearrested on the intervening night of September 25-26 this year. After her police custody remand (PCR) ended, she was remanded to magisterial custody and sent to Central Jail. On Tuesday, her defense counsel Adv Chandrashekhar Jaltare applied for bail, citing that the prosecution had failed to file the chargesheet within the 60-day time limit as per Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The offence under Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years and a fine. Adv Jaltare argued that this entitled the accused to default bail, as the chargesheet had not been filed within the mandatory period. In response, Additional Public Prosecutor Megha Burunge, assisted by Adv Amol Hunge, opposed the bail plea, arguing that the 90-day period should apply instead of 60 days due to the nature of the offence, which involves significant punishment. They contended that the accused should not be granted bail on this technicality.

 

However, the JMFC court, after reviewing the details, noted that the case falls under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, which deals with acts done with the knowledge that death could result but without the intention to cause it. As the investigation officer did not provide evidence of Ritika Maloo’s intention, the 60-day period for filing the chargesheet was deemed applicable. Consequently, the court granted bail to the accused on personal and surety bonds of Rs 50,000 each, with conditions to cooperate with the investigating agency. Furthermore, the court directed the investigation officer to explain why the chargesheet had not been filed by November 26. Defence lawyers Adv Milind Chaurasia, Adv Indrajeet Ghagarkar, and Adv Madan Puranik assisted Adv Jaltare in the proceedings.