Nagpur: Delay for one reason or another is hampering the progress of fatal Ram Jhula accident case. On Monday, August 12, the much-anticipated court proceedings involving Ritika Maloo, the key accused in the accident case, were postponed in both the Sessions Court and the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.
In the Sessions Court, the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of the presiding judge, RS Bhosle Patil. Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Khaparde informed that the judge is scheduled to hear the case soon, though no new date for the hearing has been provided.
Gold Rate
Monday 20 Jan. 2025
In the High Court, Justice Vinay Joshi postponed the case until next Monday, following a request from the relatives of the deceased for additional time to submit a supplementary affidavit. Government Pleader Devendra Chauhan stated that the relatives are seeking to transfer the investigation from the Tehsil police to the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), citing police negligence.
Maloo was initially arrested on February 25 under the bailable Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but was granted bail the same day. After her blood sample tested positive for alcohol, she was rebooked under the non-bailable Section 304 of the IPC. On July 1, she was re-arrested by the Tehsil police, but the magistrate declared the arrest unlawful the following day. A subsequent application for her arrest was also turned down by the court.
Maloo is accused of allegedly driving her Mercedes car under the influence of alcohol and ramming a two-wheeler, leading to the deaths of Mohammed Atif and Mohammed Hussain Mustafa on February 25 of this year.
Earlier, the prosecution filed a robust response before the Sessions Court, challenging the alleged delaying tactics employed by Ritika Maloo’s defence advocate, Chandrashekhar Jaltare. The defence had requested CCTV footage from Tehsil Police Station to substantiate claims of Maloo’s cooperation in the investigation.
The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Rashmi Khaparde, argued that the defence failed to cite any legal provision justifying their request for the CCTV footage. Moreover, the prosecution emphasized that granting such a plea could compromise the confidentiality of the police station, where several other sensitive cases are under investigation.
