The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an Additional District Judge following an incident involving his 17-year-old son, who was allegedly involved in a fatal car crash in Kochi on October 25. The court ruled that custodial interrogation of the judge was not necessary at this stage of the investigation. This decision came after the court examined the circumstances surrounding the case and the state’s rationale for seeking the judge’s arrest.

Justice Kauser Edappagath presided over the hearing of the bail application, which was filed by the judicial officer, who also serves as a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) judge. The judge was implicated under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which holds the vehicle’s owner or guardian accountable for offences committed by a minor operating the vehicle.

During the proceedings, the court questioned the necessity of arresting the judge, asking the state’s counsel about the rationale behind such a request. The court noted that there was no evidence indicating that the judge had failed to cooperate with the investigation, further questioning, “Do you want to put the District Judge behind bars and interrogate him?”

Accident and Legal Proceedings

The accident occurred in the early hours of October 25 when a Mercedes-Benz, allegedly driven by the judge’s son, collided with a scooter from behind, resulting in the death of the rider, Jayabalakrishnan, aged 55. Reports indicate that the victim was returning home after operating a food stall. The vehicle involved in the incident was registered in the name of the judicial officer.

Following the accident, the Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the minor driver the day after the incident. However, subsequent investigations led the police to invoke Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, alongside relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In his bail plea, the judge claimed he was unaware that his son had taken the vehicle, stating that he was asleep at the time of the incident. He argued that the intent or knowledge required for culpability under Section 105 BNS could not be automatically attributed to him due to his son’s actions.

Family’s Opposition and Court’s Response

The family of the deceased victim opposed the bail plea, demanding a thorough investigation into the judge’s actions following the accident. They alleged that the judge remained at the scene for approximately three hours and sought clarification on whether any evidence had been removed or concealed during that time.

Additionally, the prosecution’s appeal to cancel the minor’s bail was dismissed by the Special Court for Women and Children in Ernakulam. This ruling allows the 17-year-old to remain out on bail while the investigation and legal proceedings continue.

With the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the judge and the prosecution’s appeal against the minor’s bail being dismissed, both individuals will remain free as the investigation into the fatal accident unfolds. The court has also indicated that the government should provide detailed responses to bail applications, which would assist in the judicial review of such matters.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store – https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share