Kochi Mini Cooper crash: Angamaly court to pronounce verdict on Suhail Sajeev, others' bail pleas today
An Angamaly court will rule on bail for four accused over a fatal crash. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the driver's high alcohol levels, while the defence argued against culpable homicide charges.
An Angamaly court will rule on bail for four accused over a fatal crash. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the driver's high alcohol levels, while the defence argued against culpable homicide charges.
An Angamaly court will rule on bail for four accused over a fatal crash. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the driver's high alcohol levels, while the defence argued against culpable homicide charges.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Angamaly will pronounce its verdict on the bail pleas of the four accused in the Nedumbassery Mini Cooper crash that killed three scooter-borne youths on Saturday.
The court on Friday heard the bail applications of Suhail Sajeev, who was driving the speeding car, and his co-passengers Ninav, Joel and Ameer. The three passengers were arrested for allegedly abetting the offence by allowing Suhail to drive despite knowing he was drunk.
What you should read next
The crash occurred around 1.45 am when the Mini Cooper rammed the rear of a scooter, killing Devika, Gopika and Iyas on the spot.
The defence argued that the victims' alleged violation of traffic rules, including triple-riding and travelling in the middle lane, had contributed to the accident. It challenged the invocation of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), arguing that the case was driven by media hype and that the essential element of knowledge of the likely fatal consequences was absent.
The defence maintained that the case warranted, at most, charges relating to rash and negligent driving under Sections 281 and 291. It also questioned the abetment charges against the three passengers, saying they were merely accompanying the driver.
The defence further pointed to alleged discrepancies in the police version, noting that Section 105 had been invoked in the initial FIR before the suspects were formally identified or medical tests confirmed drunkenness. It also argued that the complainant, Priyadh, had not witnessed the collision and had only reported that the car swerved past him.
Meanwhile, the prosecution and the victims' counsel opposed bail, arguing that the crash was not an ordinary road accident. Medical reports showed that Suhail's blood alcohol content was 159 mg per 100 ml, more than five times the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml. The prosecution also cited CCTV footage allegedly showing the four youths entering and leaving bars, along with the car's excessive speed, to argue that the passengers had enabled the offence.
Maintaining that the investigation was at a critical stage, the prosecution warned that granting bail would send the wrong message to society.