The Ernakulam additional sessions court has rejected the bail applications of all four accused in the Nedumbassery car crash that killed three people, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the preliminary stage of the investigation and the risk of evidence tampering.
Additional sessions judge Syamlal S R denied bail to 19-year-old Suhail Sajeev, identified as the prime accused, as well as his co-passengers Ninav, Ameen Sha and Joyal S. The court’s decision followed the rejection of their bail pleas by the judicial first class magistrate court in Angamaly on October 17.
According to the prosecution materials placed before the court, Suhail was allegedly driving after consuming alcohol and rammed into a scooter from behind while travelling at excessive speed. The court observed that the evidence collected so far prima facie indicated that he was inebriated and driving at high speed when the crash occurred.
The three co-passengers were accused of failing to stop the alleged reckless driving and encouraging Suhail to speed. The court noted that the prosecution had presented material indicating their prima facie active participation and instigation. One of the passengers had allegedly filmed Suhail driving at 160kmph, according to the report placed before the court.
The defence argued that Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, had been improperly included in the first information report because the initial statement did not allege that Suhail was driving under the influence of alcohol. The court rejected that argument, holding that the omission in the statement did not by itself make the inclusion of the provision unsustainable or justify bail.
The court also declined to accept the defence argument that the abetment allegations against the three co-accused could not stand in light of earlier rulings by the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. The judge distinguished those cases from the Nedumbassery matter, citing the prosecution’s material indicating the alleged involvement of the three passengers.
The court further cited the need for custodial interrogation and the possible adverse impact of releasing the accused at this stage. Counsel representing the victims had opposed bail, raising concerns that the accused could tamper with digital evidence and influence witnesses. The four accused will remain in custody as the investigation proceeds.
