An Angamaly court has denied bail to four accused in the Nedumbassery Mini Cooper crash that killed three youths, citing allegations of drunk driving, speeds above 100 kmph and the possibility of witnesses being influenced or evidence being tampered with.
The Angamaly judicial first-class magistrate court dismissed the bail applications on Saturday. Suhail Sajeev, 19, identified as the prime accused and alleged driver of the car, is accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. His friends Ninav, 19, Ameer, 20, and Joel, 20, who were travelling in the vehicle, have been arraigned for allegedly abetting the offence.
The court noted that the vehicle was allegedly driven on a public road at more than 100 kmph while the permissible speed limit was between 60 kmph and 70 kmph. The order described the alleged conduct as a disregard for traffic laws and public safety, and said the circumstances required further investigation before the criminal culpability of the accused could be determined.
The prosecution submitted medical records obtained during the investigation. According to the court order, Suhail’s blood sample showed an alcohol concentration of 161 mg per 100 ml, while the urine sample recorded 230 mg per 100 ml. The blood alcohol reading was substantially above the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml, the court noted.
Investigators have also secured the vehicle’s event data recorder, with relevant information expected to be produced before the court. The recorder may form part of the evidence concerning the vehicle’s movement and the circumstances immediately before the collision. The court said the reason for the alleged speed and the respective roles of the other accused required further investigation and assessment of evidence.
The defence argued that the movement of the vehicles, the position of the scooter on the road, the manner in which it was being ridden and the circumstances preceding the collision needed impartial examination. It submitted that criminal culpability could not be decided solely on the basis of the deaths without assessing the actual circumstances of the crash.
The prosecution and the counsel for the father of one of the deceased also raised concerns about possible interference with the investigation. The court was told that Suhail had allegedly shouted that his father would take care of everything. With material witnesses still to be examined, the court held that there was a possibility of the accused influencing or intimidating witnesses or tampering with evidence, and that granting bail at this stage could hamper the investigation.
The court further recorded that no specific default or lapse by the investigating agency had been raised by the defence apart from its challenge to the sustainability of the charges. It said the prosecution case would ultimately have to be tested through a full investigation and appreciation of evidence by the competent court.
