KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered that the additional district judge, whose minor son allegedly drove a luxury car that killed a 55-year-old street-food vendor on October 25 in Cheranalloor, shall not be arrested until further orders.
When the anticipatory bail petition came up for hearing, Justice Kausar Edappagath orally observed that the petitioner was a judicial officer who had appeared before the police and would cooperate with the investigation.
“He is a judicial officer. He will cooperate with the investigation. Why do you (the police) want to arrest him? He has already been subjected to interrogation. There is no scope for custodial interrogation. He will cooperate with the interrogation. Necessarily, he has to be granted protection. He is a judicial officer and is available. He appeared before the police. What is there to interrogate him for four hours in connection with this offence? “The court cannot succumb to public outcry, unlike the government or the police. We will strictly go by the law. When there is no scope for custodial interrogation, and the petitioner is available for questioning and willing to cooperate with the investigation, he must necessarily be granted protection. He is a sitting judge,” the court said.
Senior advocate P Vijayabhanu, appearing for the judge, submitted that his client had appeared before the investigating officer in response to a notice, but the police had subsequently issued another notice.
The judge's 17-year-old son was allegedly driving a Mercedes-Benz car when it hit a two-wheeler at Cheranalloor on October 25, killing the scooter rider, Jayabalakrishnan.
In his petition, the judge stated that he had no knowledge that the vehicle had been taken from the premises. At approximately 2.14 am, he was awakened by a telephone call informing him that his car had been involved in an accident. It was only after receiving the call that he learnt that his minor son had allegedly taken the vehicle without his knowledge while he was asleep, the petition stated.
The petition further contended that the juvenile driver had been arraigned as an accused and that the judge, his father, was subsequently arraigned as the second accused solely based on vehicle ownership and paternity. The charges invoked include Sections 181, 183, 199A(1) and 199A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Juvenile Justice Board has granted bail to the juvenile in conflict with law (JCL).
The judge also submitted that a search warrant had been issued by the jurisdictional magistrate and that his residence had been searched. The police had seized electronic gadgets and a motorbike from the house, the petition stated.
According to the petition, nothing further remained to be investigated following the search, which was specifically intended to ascertain whether the judge knew that his son had taken the car.
The High Court had also sought an explanation from the judge, a serving judicial officer, regarding his alleged visit to the police station without obtaining prior permission from the District Judge. The judge has submitted his explanation to the High Court, the petition stated.
