Published On : Tue, Jun 25th, 2024
By Nagpur Today Nagpur News

Ram Jhula mishap case: Ritika Maloo’s husband gets relief from court

Court dismisses Tehsil Police’s revision petition in Dinesh Maloo bail case
Advertisement

Nagpur: The District and Sessions Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by Tehsil police against the order of a lower court granting bail and rejecting the custody of Dinesh Maloo, husband of key accused in the Ram Jhula accident case Ritika, who is now on the run. Two youngsters, Mohd Atif and Mohd Hussain Mustafa, were killed after Ritika’s Mercedes car hit their scooter on the Ram Jhula bridge on February 25.

The revision petition against the order passed by JMFC Court No 4, which rejected the PCR and granted bail to Dinesh Maloo was dismissed by S S Nagur, the 11th District and Sessions Judge. Assistant Public Prosecutor Adv Rashmi Khaperde filed the revision challenging the lower court’s order. She argued that Dinesh Maloo played a crucial role in the incident: He arrived at Ram Jhula, removed papers and liquor bottles, assisted Ritu Malu in escaping, arranged medicine to reduce Ritu’s blood alcohol content, hid her for six hours, and refused to cooperate with the police by withholding his phone’s password. She further argued that instead of taking Ritu to the nearby Mayo Hospital, Dinesh took her elsewhere to tamper with evidence.

Advertisement
Today's Rate
Wed 11 Dec. 2024
Gold 24 KT 78,100/-
Gold 22 KT 72,600/-
Silver / Kg 94,300/-
Platinum 44,000/-
Recommended rate for Nagpur sarafa Making charges minimum 13% and above

Defence lawyer, Advocate Prakash Jaiswal argued that there were no serious allegations against Dinesh. He asserted that it was a husband’s duty to assist his injured wife and explained that he took her to a private hospital due to concerns about the conditions of government hospitals. He also pointed out that Dinesh had provided his contact information to the police, leading to Ritu’s arrest. He mentioned that Ritu’s blood alcohol level of 30 mg was within acceptable limits for female consumption, and suggested that medical professionals could verify this.

Advocate Jaiswal also contended that the Maloos had faced unnecessary harassment in the case and criticized the state’s adoption of illegal procedures. After hearing the arguments, the court dismissed the state’s revision petition.

Adv Prakash Jaiswal, Adv Ashish Nayak, Adv Gazala Khan, and Adv Avinash Balpande appeared for Dinesh Maloo, while APP Rashmi Khaperde represented the State.

Advertisement