Mercedes-Benz crash: Kerala court upholds bail, flags police lapses in judge's son case

The Ernakulam Children's Court has upheld the bail granted to a 17-year-old boy accused of driving a Mercedes-Benz car that allegedly rammed a scooter, killing 55-year-old Jayabalakrishnan in October. The court, however, found that the police had failed to follow mandatory safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act while dealing with the minor.

Dismissing appeals filed by the Kerala government and the deceased man's children challenging the bail granted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan held that the gravity of the accident, the death of the victim and the public outrage following the incident could not override the statutory protections available to a child accused of an offence.

“The loss suffered by the family of the deceased is irreversible, and the Court is conscious of the pain and grievance of the appellants. However, the statutory rights of a child cannot be displaced by the gravity of the consequence alone,” the court said.

The court further observed that the statutory safeguards provided for children should not be disregarded or diluted under the pressure of public agitation or otherwise.

While upholding the bail granted on October 25, the court pointed out several procedural lapses in the investigation, including the registration of an FIR against the minor and his subsequent arrest, which it found to be in violation of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Model Rules, 2016.

The judgement, pronounced on Thursday, November 5, clarified that its findings did not amount to an adjudication on the allegations relating to the accident. The investigation can continue, provided the authorities follow the procedure prescribed for dealing with children in conflict with the law, the court said.

What happened on the night of the accident

According to the FIR and the records examined by the court, the accident occurred around 2.20 am on October 25, 2026, on the Vallarpadam–Kalamassery Container Road near the Ford showroom at Cheranalloor Maraparambu.

The prosecution alleged that a Mercedes-Benz car, bearing registration number KL-46-F-0333, hit a scooter travelling in the same direction. A 55-year-old man, Jayabalakrishnan, was driving the scooter. He sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day.

The crime was initially registered against an unknown driver under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). An alteration report submitted at 9.40 am on the day of the accident identified the alleged driver as a 17-year-old boy.

The police subsequently deleted the initial provisions and incorporated Section 105 of the BNS, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to excessive speed and driving without a valid licence.

A significant part of the prosecution's case concerned a video allegedly recovered from the boy's mobile phone. The video reportedly showed the vehicle's speedometer registering 108 kmph. The prosecution alleged that the boy was driving with one hand while recording the speedometer with the other, in rainy conditions.

The state argued that these circumstances indicated a grave disregard for the safety of other road users and warranted cancellation of bail.

Court finds police violated juvenile justice safeguards

One of the principal findings in the judgement concerns the manner in which the police proceeded against the minor.

The court examined Rule 8(1) of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, which stipulates that an FIR should not ordinarily be registered against a child alleged to have committed an offence, except in cases involving heinous offences or offences allegedly committed jointly with adults.

In other cases, the police are required to record the information in the General Daily Diary, prepare a Social Background Report in Form I and forward it to the Juvenile Justice Board.

The court found that the alleged offences against the boy did not qualify as heinous offences under the JJ Act. The court also rejected the argument that the offence was jointly committed by a child and an adult simply because the vehicle's registered owner was later named as an accused under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court noted that the police had obtained a medical examination certificate concerning the minor at 5 am on October 25, nearly two-and-a-half hours before the FIR was registered at 7.34 am. The boy's name was subsequently incorporated into the crime through an alteration report at 9.40 am.

Examining this sequence, the judge found that the police already knew the identity of the alleged driver and had subjected him to police-related procedures even before the formal registration of the FIR.

It also held that the police could not circumvent Rule 8 by initially registering a case against an unknown person and subsequently adding the identified child as an accused through an alteration report.

It further found that the records did not establish that the police had followed the mandatory General Diary procedure or prepared the required Social Background Report.

Boy was arrested twice on the same day

The judgement also examined the circumstances surrounding the minor's subsequent arrest.

According to the arrest report, the boy was arrested again at around 9.45 pm on October 25 in the presence of his parents, and the grounds were communicated to his father.

However, the court found that the arrest itself was not legally justified. Under Rule 8(1), arrest in cases involving petty and serious offences is restricted unless it is necessary in the best interests of the child.

The court said that the exception allowing a child to be arrested in their best interest cannot be used as a blanket power whenever investigators find it convenient. Any such action must be justified by concerns directly linked to the child's welfare and protection, the court added.

The court found no such circumstances, noting that the minor was arrested after the offence was changed to Section 105 of the BNS, mainly to facilitate the investigation and collect evidence.

It also pointed out that the investigating officer had initially released the boy into his father's custody on an undertaking that he would be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board whenever directed.

“The CCL (the accused) here in was brought to the police station twice in the same day without any legal basis, and the same itself is illegal,” the order said.

Why the court refused to cancel bail

The prosecution and the deceased man's children had argued that the boy's release could expose him to danger, affect the investigation and undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The prosecution also argued that the boy belonged to an influential family, was approaching the age of majority and had access to a mobile phone and social media accounts. It contended that his release at an early stage of the investigation could send an undesirable message to society.

The court, however, found these arguments insufficient to warrant cancellation of bail.

Under Section 12 of the JJ Act, a child alleged to have committed an offence is ordinarily entitled to bail, irrespective of whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable. Bail can be refused only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child's release would bring him into association with known criminals, expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The court found that none of these three exceptions had been established.

It noted that the prosecution had not produced any specific material to show that the boy's release would bring him into contact with known criminals or expose him to danger. Nor was there a Social Investigation Report establishing that his family environment was unsuitable.

Similarly, the prosecution had not demonstrated any instance of witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, interference with the investigation or non-cooperation by the minor.

The judge also held that the boy's family background, social standing, age and access to technology could not independently constitute grounds for denying bail.

“The law does not create a separate category of children who may be denied the protection of Section 12 based on their family background, social standing or economic circumstances. The statutory test must be applied uniformly, without regard to the social or economic status of the child or his family,” the court said.

The court acknowledged that the alleged video showing the speedometer at 108 kmph, if established, could be relevant to determining the nature of the alleged conduct. However, it said such allegations could not replace the statutory grounds required for denying bail.

It also observed that the death of the victim and the irreversible loss suffered by his family were matters of grave concern, but the JJ Act did not provide for the automatic detention of a child merely because an alleged offence resulted in a person's death.

Court questions public agitation and police response

An important aspect of the judgement concerns the public outrage that followed the accident and the arguments advanced by the deceased man's family.

The court found a contradiction in the argument by the deceased man’s family that the minor faced danger after his release, but they also staged protests outside the police station and expressed anger over his release in media interviews and on social media.

It held that such circumstances, particularly when allegedly generated or aggravated by the appellants' own side, could not be relied upon to seek cancellation of bail.

The judge also rejected the argument that the minor should be placed in an Observation Home as it was not intended to function as a place of custodial detention for the convenience of investigators.

The court emphasised that public sentiment, media attention and agitation could not determine the legal consequences of an allegation against a child.

“The Court is required to apply the law as enacted and cannot permit public reaction, however intense, to determine the legal consequences of an allegation against a child,” it added.

What happens next

While upholding the bail granted to the boy, the court directed the Juvenile Justice Board to examine procedural lapses in the police investigation independently.

The Board has been asked to obtain the relevant General Diary entry and the Social Background Report in Form I from the competent police authority or Special Juvenile Police Unit, along with details of the circumstances and necessity, if any, for apprehending the minor.

In a significant direction, the court specifically prohibited the retrospective creation, alteration or backdating of official records. If the prescribed General Diary entry or any other contemporaneous record had not been maintained, the police must explicitly report that fact to the Board.

The court also directed the investigating officer to coordinate with the Cyber Police and take appropriate action against the unauthorised circulation of the minor's photographs and personal details on social media, which could disclose his identity in violation of Section 74 of the JJ Act.

The judgement concluded by cautioning the investigating agency to strictly follow the Juvenile Justice Act and its Model Rules in all cases involving children in conflict with law and not to disregard statutory safeguards under pressure from public agitation.

The court did not impose costs on the state or the investigating officer, noting that the police had faced considerable public pressure and that the prosecution had undertaken to take corrective measures.