A Kerala court on Saturday (October 17) denied bail to four accused in the Mini Cooper crash, including 19-year-old Suhail Sajeev, who allegedly drove the car that claimed the lives of three.

The fatal accident was caused when the Mini Cooper car allegedly driven by Sajeev hit a scooter carrying three riders Eyas, Devika and Gopika. The incident happened in the early hours of October 11 (Sunday) at the Airport-Athani road.

Smt. Samyuktha M.K., Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly dismissed the regular bail application preferred by Sajeev, Ninav, Joyal S. Anto and Ameen Sha. The co-accused were alleged passengers of the car and have been accused of abetting the crime.

The prosecution has alleged that the accused were guilty of offences under Sections 281, 105, 49, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sajeev and Ninav, accused Nos. 1 and 2, were arrested on October 11 and were remanded to judicial custody. The next day, Joyal and Ameen were arrested and remanded.

Court Notes Alleged Intoxication And Excessive Speed

The court noted that the prosecution relied on the medical examination of the first accused, which allegedly indicated a blood alcohol concentration of 161 mg per 100 ml and a urine alcohol concentration of 230 mg per 100 ml.

The order observed that the reported blood alcohol concentration was substantially higher than the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The prosecution also alleged that the car was being driven at a speed exceeding 100 kmph, on a stretch where signboards indicated maximum speed limits of 70 kmph on straight roads and 60 kmph on curved roads. The court noted that the actual speed at the time of the accident was yet to be ascertained.

Observing that the alleged combination of intoxication and excessive speed was relevant to determining whether the case involved culpable homicide or death caused by rash or negligent driving, the court said the allegations could not be rejected merely because the First Information Statement did not expressly set out every ingredient of the offence under Section 105 BNS.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State, through P.S. Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda (2012), the Magistrate noted the distinction between causing death by negligence and culpable homicide in the context of driving under the influence of alcohol and at high speed.

The court clarified that the questions concerning the identity of the driver, the degree of intoxication, the vehicle's actual speed and the requisite knowledge under Section 105 would have to be determined on the basis of evidence.

Court Says Alleged Role Of Other Accused Requires Investigation

The court also considered the prosecution's allegations against accused numbers 2 to 4, who were travelling in the car.

"All the accused persons were well aware of the fact that Accused no. 1 is highly intoxicated stage, and by the influence of which he may not be able to take prudent decisions while driving. It is also pertinent to note that they were not travelling for any specific purpose, and it is contented by the accused persons that A3 and 4 reached Nedumbassery for another purpose in another car but decided to have a ride in the mini cooper car driven by the First accused. Hence the chances of instigations to drive the vehicle at such a higher speed cannot be ruled out. The precise nature of their participation and whether the essential ingredients of abetment or any other form of criminal liability are made out must be determined on the basis of the evidence collected and proved in accordance with law," the court observed.

The defence had argued that the circumstances surrounding the accident were materially different from the prosecution's version. The lawyers questioned the manner in which the first informant's statement was recorded, the absence of specific allegations regarding excessive speed in the initial version and the fact that the informant was allegedly uncertain about the identity of the driver.

The defence also contended that the scooter's position on the road and the alleged failure of its occupants to wear helmets required consideration. It argued that the first accused's conduct, even if established, would at most attract Section 106 BNS, which deals with causing death by negligence, rather than Section 105.

The second accused claimed that he was merely a passenger and had no control over the vehicle, while the other accused also disputed the allegations and contended that their individual roles had not been established.

The Magistrate held that these arguments involved the appreciation of evidence and could not be conclusively determined at the bail stage. The court said the absence of the accused's name in the initial First Information Statement, or the absence of an express allegation regarding rashness or excessive speed, was not by itself sufficient to reject the prosecution's case.

It further observed that the mere fact that the informant was not an eyewitness, or did not have complete knowledge of the occurrence, would not automatically invalidate the First Information Statement.

Counsel for the accused: Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Afsana Khan, Sreeraj S. Rajaram, Biju D. Nair, Ajikumar K.K.

Counsel for the respondents: Divyadas - Asst. Public Prosecutor, Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P