'A Prudent Person Will Not Drive Vehicle Under The Influence Of Alcohol': HC

Observing that a prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court refused to grant pre-arrest bail to a woman accused of allegedly driving her Mercedes car in an inebriated state and ramming into a bike killing two persons in February this year. The court noted that nobody can be permitted to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and this was a serious misconduct. 

The court rejected the pre-arrest bail plea filed by Ritu Maloo who is accused of driving her car in an inebriated state and ramming into a bike on Ram Jhula bridge in Nagpur, in which two persons were killed.

When a motor vehicle is driven after consuming alcohol, road accidents become a predictable consequence, the court said. “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,” Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke said on Wednesday. “A prudent person will not drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol,” it added. 

In a detailed order, the court said the woman was highly educated and belongs to a highly respectable family. The court also took note of the fact that she had fled from the accident spot and had later tried to claim to the police that she was not the one who was driving.

The police, initially, booked Maloo under the offence of causing death by negligence, rash and negligent driving and causing hurt to a person by a rash act. Following the death of the two persons, the police invoked the provision of section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

She was initially granted bail. However, the police sought to arrest her again following which she approached the HC. her plea contended that she had consumed alcohol in the permissible limits and that it was a mere accident. Also, custodial interrogation was not required.

The judge relied on CCTV footage and said the accused had covered 3.8 kilometres within three to five minutes on the night of the accident. “The applicant has driven the car in a drunken condition and hit the Activa bike. In the accident, two persons have lost their lives. Without showing any remorse to them, the applicant left the place,” the bench added. 

It added, “Nobody can be permitted to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the lives of others is a very serious misconduct.” 

The court underscored that the manner in which the accident has occurred is sufficient to attract the provisions of section 304 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.