Court keeps Nedumbassery crash accused out of adult prison

The Angamaly Judicial First Class Magistrate Court rejected a request to transfer Suhail Sajeev, the 19-year-old prime accused in the Nedumbassery fatal Mini Cooper crash, from Kakkanad Borstal School to Viyyur Central Prison. Onmanorama reported that the request came from the superintendent of Kakkanad Borstal School.

The Hindu and Mathrubhumi English headlines also state that the court rejected a move to shift the accused from Borstal School to jail, with Mathrubhumi naming Sajeev. The court’s decision rested on Sajeev’s status as an adolescent accused with no prior criminal record, and on concern for his safety if he were housed with adult offenders.

Onmanorama said the court cited fears that fellow inmates might attack him. The account describes this as a safety concern raised in considering the transfer; it does not report that an attack had occurred. In explaining its ruling, the court referred to Section 39(4) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, and the Borstal Schools Act, 1961.

It observed that the statutory framework envisages adolescent offenders remaining in Borstal Schools even after conviction. The court’s reasoning, as reported, therefore addressed both Sajeev’s current status as an accused and the legal provision concerning detention after conviction. The court also considered figures for Viyyur Central Prison submitted to it.

The prison’s sanctioned capacity was 553 inmates, while it was accommodating 1,227 at the time of the report—more than twice its designated capacity. Onmanorama presented those numbers as official figures placed before the court.

The report does not state that overcrowding was the sole basis for the ruling; it records it alongside the court’s concerns about housing an adolescent accused with adult offenders. The decision leaves the transfer request rejected and addresses whether Sajeev should be moved to Viyyur Central Prison.

Onmanorama identifies him as the prime accused in the fatal crash, not as convicted of the crash. Its account says the statutory framework contemplates adolescent offenders remaining in Borstal Schools after conviction, but does not report a conviction in Sajeev’s case.

The reported issue now turns on the court’s decision not to approve the requested move and on the legal framework it cited. The account provides no further court directions or timetable for a subsequent decision.

The central institutional figures before the court were Viyyur’s capacity of 553 and its reported occupancy of 1,227; the safety concern concerned the prospect of placing an adolescent accused among adult inmates.