Nagpur: In the ongoing Ram Jhula accident case, the prosecution filed a robust response on Friday 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.
Prosecution’s strong rebuttal:
Gold Rate
Tuesday 21 Jan. 2025
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.
The court is set to continue hearing arguments on August 12, regarding the prosecution’s plea to cancel Maloo’s bail and permit her re-arrest for further custodial interrogation. This follows the fatal accident on February 25, which claimed the lives of two young men, Mohd Atif and Mohd Hussain Mustafa, on the Ram Jhula flyover. A forensic report had previously indicated the presence of alcohol in Maloo’s blood sample.
Defence accused of misleading the investigation:
In their reply, the prosecution highlighted that Maloo had indeed been present at Tehsil Police Station on March 18, 22, and 23, but had not cooperated with the investigation officer. On March 23, Maloo submitted a written statement to the police, alleging that it was Madhuri Sarda, not her, who was driving the car during the accident. The prosecution argued that this misled the investigation and accused the defence of filing the application for CCTV footage as a means to delay the judicial process.
Senior Inspector Sandeep Buwa, the investigation officer in the case, supported the prosecution’s stance, citing concerns over confidentiality. He argued that releasing the CCTV footage to the defence could expose sensitive information, including the identities of victims and witnesses in crucial cases under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities (MPDA) Act. This could potentially create life-threatening situations for those involved.
Buwa also noted that while the CCTV footage for the specified dates has been preserved, the defence failed to specify the timeframe for which the footage was requested. This lack of specificity further undermined the defence’s plea.
In a related development, the defence counsel filed a written submission, drawing the judge’s attention to a report on an application filed by the victims’ families seeking a change of court for the hearing. This additional request further complicates the legal proceedings.
As the court prepares to continue the hearing on August 12, the prosecution’s strong counter arguments have put the defence on the back foot. The case remains a high-profile one, with both sides locked in a tense legal battle over the tragic incident that took place on the Ram Jhula flyover.
