KOCHI: The Additional District Court, Ernakulam, on Saturday questioned the purpose of cancelling the bail granted to a 17-year-old who allegedly drove the luxury car involved in the Cheranalloor accident that claimed the life of 55-year-old Jayabalakrishnan in the early hours of Sunday, October 25.
The court was hearing appeals filed by the state government and the children of the deceased seeking to set aside the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) order granting bail to the child in conflict with the law (CCL).
The prosecution submitted that the Principal Magistrate of the JJB had failed to consider several crucial aspects while granting bail. These included the juvenile's previous conduct, the invocation of Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), how he had learned to drive and the fact that he did not possess a driving licence.
During the hearing, the court orally asked what purpose would be served by cancelling the bail. Counsel representing the deceased's family argued that allowing the juvenile to remain on bail would send a wrong message to society, as teenagers might believe they could escape consequences even after committing similar offences.
The court observed that the allegation that the juvenile had deleted videos from Instagram soon after being released on bail, if established, would amount to tampering with evidence.
Pointing to the prosecution's allegation that the CCL had deleted social media posts after securing bail, the court asked his counsel: "You contend that you deleted them because the reels were continuously circulating on social media. Were the videos being circulated on social media posted by the CCL? Were they leaked from there?"
The counsel submitted that the Instagram account had been deleted to protect the family's privacy.
Counsel for the deceased's family alleged that the juvenile was a habitual offender, though no previous criminal case had been registered against him.
The prosecution submitted that the CCL was produced before the JJB at 11 am. The court, however, questioned why the police had failed to gather all relevant details despite having sufficient time between the accident and the juvenile's production before the Board.
The court also observed that several unusual developments had taken place since the inception of the case. Initially, the police registered a case under Section 106 of the BNS and released the juvenile on station bail. Subsequently, Section 105 of the BNS was invoked, and he was produced before the JJB.
The court made it clear that an investigating agency seeking cancellation of bail must specify the reasons for such a request. Merely stating that cancellation was necessary in the interest of justice would not suffice. The prosecution must clearly explain the specific requirements of the investigation that necessitate cancellation of bail, the court observed.
The court directed the police to produce the case diary and ordered the investigating officer to appear before it on November 2.
It also directed the Cyber Police to explain the action taken on a complaint raised by the juvenile's counsel regarding the disclosure of his identity on various social media platforms. The officer was directed to submit an action-taken report.
The prosecution argued that there was a likelihood of the juvenile committing a similar offence and that his continued custody in an Observation Home was necessary. It contended that the JJB had failed to consider Instagram reels posted by the juvenile showing his driving and speedometer readings.
According to the prosecution, the juvenile was fully aware of the consequences of his actions, as he was driving at high speed in rainy conditions. He had allegedly recorded videos with one hand while dangerously driving the car with the other.
The investigation also revealed that the juvenile had deleted evidence relating to the incident, including videos he had posted on Instagram, the prosecution submitted.
The prosecution further pointed out that the luxury car was being driven at high speed and that the juvenile had recorded multiple videos. His age was also relevant, as he would turn 18 in February 2027. The prosecution maintained that the JJB's order granting him bail should be quashed.
Counsel representing the deceased's family submitted that the juvenile had taken the luxury car without his parents' permission and driven approximately 35 km from his home. The car was allegedly travelling at 108 kmph when the accident occurred. The juvenile did not possess a driving licence and was not entitled to bail, the counsel argued.
The counsel further contended that the JJB was required to consider and decide a bail application filed by a child in conflict with the law under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and not under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The bail order was therefore illegal, the counsel submitted.
The counsel also argued that the juvenile's continued release on bail could endanger his own life. There was criminal intent on his part, as he had taken the car without his parents' knowledge and driven away in the middle of the night. Granting him bail would send a wrong message to society, the counsel maintained.
According to the counsel, soon after the accident, the juvenile allegedly attempted to flee the scene instead of contacting his parents. The car continued for approximately 200 metres after hitting Jayabalakrishnan before coming to a halt due to a mechanical issue.
The juvenile was not honest about the incident and had failed to admit his mistake, the counsel alleged.
His parents subsequently arrived at the accident spot in another car. The parents and friends of the juvenile remained at the scene for nearly three hours. The prosecution's case was that evidence had been destroyed, the counsel submitted.
The counsel further argued that the juvenile could be recognised in public places, potentially affecting his well-being, including his mental health. It was therefore the duty of the JJB to send him to a juvenile home for his own protection, the counsel submitted.
Opposing the appeals, counsel for the juvenile argued that they were not maintainable, as a separate procedure had been prescribed for cancellation of bail.