The Kerala High Court has once again come under scrutiny following its latest order and observations in the Nedumbassery Mini Cooper accident case, which claimed the lives of three young people aged around 21.
Nearly a month after the accident on Oct 11, the High Court on Nov 6 granted bail to all four accused. The three passengers, identified as Joyal S. Anto, Ninav and Ameen Shah, were granted bail without any additional waiting period. However, the main accused, Suhail Sajeev, who was allegedly driving the car under the influence of alcohol, was directed to remain in custody for another 10 days before his release.
The victims, Eyas, Devika and Gopika, were travelling on a scooter when the speeding Mini Cooper rammed into them on the Airport-Athani road near Nedumbassery, resulting in their deaths.
Defence and prosecution arguments
During the hearing, the defence argued that Suhail, a second-year B.Com student, is apparently alleged to be academically bright and should be granted bail, stating that his continued detention was affecting his education and future prospects.
The prosecution opposed the bail applications, arguing that the accused were responsible for the deaths of three young people whose lives had been abruptly cut short. It sought to prevent their release until the investigation was completed and all the necessary evidence was collected.
The prosecution also raised concerns about the circumstances surrounding the accident and the alleged involvement of the passengers in encouraging the driver to overspeed despite knowing that he was intoxicated. Also raising accusations that the man had been in similar accidents before.
The defence maintained that the accused had already spent nearly a month in judicial custody and that the investigation had progressed sufficiently for them to be released under appropriate bail conditions.
Court's observations and bail order
Justice Kauser Edappagath of the Kerala High Court granted bail to all four accused, while directing that Suhail be released only after 10 days.
The court orally observed that the passengers could not automatically be held responsible for the serious offences alleged against them without establishing their requisite knowledge and involvement.
The judge also observed that mere consumption of alcohol or overspeeding was not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the accused possessed the knowledge required to attract the charge of culpable homicide.
The court noted that the accused had spent almost a month in custody, had undergone police interrogation on two occasions and that the investigation and collection of evidence had reached an advanced stage.
The court also referred to the young age of the accused and the alleged absence of criminal antecedents while considering their continued detention.
A detailed written order is awaited. The observations made during the bail hearing do not amount to a final determination of criminal liability, which will be examined during the trial.
BMW report confirms excessive speed
The bail order comes just a day after the BMW technical inspection report confirmed the excessive speed of the Mini Cooper involved in the accident.
According to the report submitted by BMW India to the investigation team on Nov 5, the vehicle was travelling at 162 kmph approximately five seconds before the collision. Its speed had reduced to 144 kmph at the time of impact, with the driver reportedly applying the brakes only around one second before the crash.
The findings were based on data retrieved from the vehicle's Advanced Crash Safety Module (ACSM).
Earlier, police had examined CCTV footage from different locations along the route and found that the car had covered approximately 500 metres in just 11 seconds. The BMW report provided further technical support for the police findings.
Alleged remarks following the accident
The incident had already attracted widespread attention following reports of the alleged remarks made by Suhail after the crash.
According to reports, after the collision, Suhail allegedly questioned the locals by saying, "What are roads for? Driving, right?" He also reportedly claimed that his father would take care of the situation.
These reported remarks, along with the circumstances of the accident and the subsequent bail proceedings, have intensified public criticism surrounding the case.
The latest development has triggered further outrage among people already frustrated by fatal road accidents involving luxury vehicles and reckless driving.
The three victims had their own lives and futures ahead of them, which were abruptly ended in the Oct 11 collision. The case has once again raised questions about road safety, criminal accountability and the time taken for victims' families to obtain justice.
Comments