Kochi Benz crash: ‘What can father do when son takes car while asleep,’ Defence asks HC
Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted interim protection to the Additional Sessions Judge who was booked following the involvement of his minor son in a fatal car accident at Cheranalloor that caused the death of a scooter rider.
Justice Kauser Edappagath issued the order on the anticipatory bail application submitted by the judge. The complainant strongly opposed the bail petition, alleging that the judge tampered with evidence immediately after learning of the accident. However, clarifying that the matter can only proceed in accordance with the law, the court granted protection from arrest to the accused.
The crash occurred on October 25 at Cheranalloor in Kochi when a Mercedes-Benz car driven by the accused judge's 17-year-old son collided with a two-wheeler, killing the scooter rider, Jayabalakrishnan. Serving as a judge at the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), the father of the minor was arrayed as an accused in the FIR registered by the police following the accident.
The FIR has been prepared invoking Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), along with Sections 181, 183, 199A (1) and 199A (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA). Section 199A provides that when a minor commits a motor vehicle offence, subject to certain legal exceptions, the parent or owner of the vehicle shall be deemed guilty and can be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
In his petition filed before the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail, the judge claimed he had no knowledge that the vehicle had been moved from the premises. He stated that whilst he was asleep, his minor son surreptitiously took the car out, and he came to know about the accident only when he received a telephone call informing him of the incident.
“Attributing knowledge under BNS Section 105 to a parent sleeping at home whilst a minor child secretly takes a vehicle out is legally unsustainable and fundamentally contrary to the principles of criminal law,” read the central argument in the petition. Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu and Advocate John S Ralph appeared on behalf of the accused judge.
Subsequently, the court questioned the necessity of interrogating the judge for four hours previously and the need for further questioning now. Pointing out that the accused is a serving judge, the court observed that he would cooperate with the investigation. “The police shall not arrest the petitioner until further orders. However, he must appear before the investigating officer at 1.00 pm today and present himself again whenever required. The questioning of the petitioner must strictly adhere to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court,” the court specified in its order.
Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, appearing for the accused judge, informed the court that his client had appeared before the police yesterday and underwent questioning for over four hours. He added that another notice had been served asking him to appear before the police again.
The court remarked, “What was the need to question him for four hours, and what is the need to question him again now? Why is his arrest required? He is a judicial officer and will cooperate with the investigation.”
Meanwhile, the advocate representing the family of Jayabalakrishnan, who died in the accident, opposed the bail plea. He argued that as soon as the accused judge learnt of the accident, he tampered with evidence. However, clarifying that the case can only proceed according to law, the court granted protection from arrest to the accused. The court has directed the prosecutor to submit the State Government's stance on the petition.
On October 26, the Juvenile Justice Board in Ernakulam had granted bail to the judge's son. A petition filed by the State Government seeking the cancellation of this bail is currently under consideration by the Sessions Court. Meanwhile, the family of the deceased has submitted a complaint to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court requesting an inquiry into the conduct of the judicial officer.
It is learnt that the Administrative Committee of the High Court held a preliminary meeting on October 27 to review details regarding the accident. Sources indicated that as the police investigation is underway, the committee decided that no immediate action is required against the judicial officer and resolved to await further information from the investigating agency.