Kochi: “My father will take care of everything.” These were the words 19-year-old Suhail Sajeev reportedly said to the local residents in the immediate aftermath of the fatal Nedumbassery Mini Cooper crash, when they confronted him over driving at a high speed in an intoxicated state. The alleged boast may now have come back to haunt him, with the court recording the remark in the judgement while rejecting bail for him and three co-accused in the case that claimed three young lives.

The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Angamaly on Saturday dismissed the bail applications of Suhail, the alleged driver, and co-accused Ninav (19), Joyal S Anto (19) and Ameen Sha (19). While the court did not identify the reported remark as the decisive factor, it recorded the allegation in the context of concerns that the accused could influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation if released.

Magistrate Samyuktha M K held that their release at this stage could hamper the probe, citing the seriousness of the allegations, the possibility of witness intimidation and the risk of evidence tampering.

The crash occurred around 1.45 am on October 11 near Suvarnodhyanam at Moozhiyal near Nedumbasserry, on the Airport-Athani road. According to the prosecution, the Mini Cooper driven by Suhail collided with a scooter carrying Eyas, Gopika and Devika, all of whom died from their injuries.

The four face charges under Sections 281 (rash and negligent driving), 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 49 (abetment) and 3(5) (joint liability of the crime) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The remark that found mention in court
During the bail hearing, advocate Muhammed Zain Shabeer P P, appearing for Gopika’s father, referred to the allegation that Suhail had shouted after the collision that his father would take care of everything.

The court recorded the submission in the context of concerns over possible interference with witnesses.

“According to the prosecution, the said circumstance, considered along with the nature of the occurrence and the fact that material witnesses are yet to be examined, gives rise to an apprehension that the accused may attempt to influence witnesses or interfere with the remaining investigation,” the order said.

The order does not establish that the reported remark was proved. Nor does it say that the remark alone warranted the denial of bail. However, its inclusion in the proceedings adds significance to concerns about possible witness influence while the investigation remains incomplete.

The court noted that the prosecution might have to rely substantially on circumstantial evidence. It warned that relevant material could be “destroyed, suppressed, or tampered with”, potentially prejudicing the investigation.

Why court did not accept defence argument
The defence lawyer Saiby Jose Kidangoor argued that the case, at most, attracted Section 106 of the BNS, which deals with causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. He also questioned the driver’s identification and pointed to the alleged position of the scooter - riding through the centre of the road- and the victims’ failure to wear helmets.

The court held that these issues required examination of the evidence and could not be conclusively decided during bail proceedings.

Referring to a previous Supreme Court's judgement, the Magistrate said driving at exceptionally high speed while intoxicated could expose other road users to a grave and foreseeable risk to life.

“Such circumstances prima facie support an inference that the accused had knowledge of the potential consequences of the act,” the court observed, explaining why the culpable homicide charge under Section 105 could not be ruled out at this stage.

According to the medical records cited in the order, Suhail’s blood alcohol concentration was 161 mg per 100 ml, while the urine alcohol concentration was 230 mg per 100 ml. The court compared the blood result with the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The prosecution alleged that the car was travelling at more than 100 km/h. However, the court clarified that the actual speed at the time of the collision was yet to be ascertained.

Why co-passengers were denied bail
The three co-accused argued that they were merely passengers and had no control over the vehicle. The court said their alleged knowledge of Suhail’s intoxicated condition and their alleged role in encouraging him to drive at excessive speed required further investigation.

It recorded the prosecution’s allegation that Ninav and Joyal had consumed alcohol with Suhail, while noting that no specific allegation of alcohol consumption had been made against Ameen.

The court also referred to the defence version that Joyal and Ameen had reached Nedumbassery in another car before deciding to have a ride in the Mini Cooper driven by Suhail. Hence, the possibility of instigation could not be ruled out at this stage, while leaving their individual criminal liability to be determined on the evidence.

The prosecution informed the court that the vehicle’s Event Data Recorder had been secured and that further examination of CCTV footage and other evidence remained pending.

Concluding that releasing the accused could hamper the investigation, the court dismissed all four bail applications.