"No Prudent Person Drives Drunk": No Bail To Nagpur Woman Who Mowed Down 2 On Bike

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court refused pre-arrest bail to a woman accused of driving her Mercedes under the influence of alcohol and killing two people and said no prudent person drives drunk.

A single bench of Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke said nobody can be permitted to drive a vehicle after consuming alcohol, calling it a serious misconduct.

The court rejected Ritu Maloo's plea seeking anticipatory bail. Ms Maloo is accused of driving her Mercedes in an inebriated state and ramming it into a bike on Nagpur's Ram Jhula bridge in February, killing the two men on the two-wheeler.

The bench noted that when a vehicle is driven after consuming alcohol, road accidents become a predictable consequence.

“In such a scenario, attributing knowledge to the driver of the vehicle that death can be a likely consequence of drunken driving is legally tenable,” the court said.

“A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol,” the court said.

The bench said the woman is “highly educated” and belongs to a "highly respectable family”. It noted that she fled from the spot and later tried to claim before the police that she was not at the wheel.

Initially, Ms Maloo was charged with causing death by negligence, rash and negligent driving and causing hurt to a person by a rash act.

Following the death of the two men, the police invoked Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code against her

The woman was initially granted bail. The police, however, later sought to arrest her again prompting Ms Maloo to move the High Court for a pre-arrest bail.

Ms Maloo contended that she had consumed alcohol within the permissible limits and it was a mere accident. She claimed that no custodial interrogation was required in the case.

“The applicant has driven the car in a drunken condition and hit the Activa bike. In the accident, two persons lost their lives. Without showing any remorse to them, the applicant left the place,” the court said.

“Nobody can be permitted to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol,” the court said, stressing that driving a vehicle when drunk and “playing with the lives of others is a very serious misconduct”.

The court said that the manner in which the accident occurred was sufficient to attract Section 304 of the IPC.

It added that knowledge of the consequences of one's action can be attributed to a person who drives a car in a rash and negligent manner after alcohol consumption.

The court said Ms Maloo was not entitled to any relief and rejected her pre-arrest bail plea.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)