Published Nov 05, 2026 | 6:14 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 05, 2026 | 6:14 PM
The court noted that the police had added further charges after initially registering the case.
Synopsis: The Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court has rejected appeals by the Kerala police and Jayabalakrishnan’s family seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 17-year-old accused in the Cheranalloor crash, questioning the legal basis for the FIR and the subsequent charges under the Juvenile Justice Act. The court criticised the investigation, held that the minor was entitled to remain on bail and directed the prosecution to explain why a penalty should not be imposed for filing the appeals.
The Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court has dismissed appeals filed by the Kerala police and the family of Jayabalakrishnan seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 17-year-old accused in the Cheranalloor crash in Kochi.
The court questioned the legal basis for registering an FIR against the minor and expressed doubts over the sustainability of the charges. It also criticised the investigating officers and the prosecution for their handling of the case.
The court questioned whether the investigating officers were making a mockery of the Juvenile Justice Act, observing that an FIR against a child in conflict with the law could be registered under the Act only when the alleged offence carried a maximum punishment of seven years or more. No such offence was made out in this case, it said.
The court noted that the police had added further charges after initially registering the case. The minor was arrested and granted bail, but was taken into custody again after the additional charges were incorporated and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board.
The court said the sequence of events was unprecedented and held that the 17-year-old was entitled to remain on bail under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. It also observed that the subsequent charges would not withstand legal scrutiny and that the investigating officers’ actions had denied the victim natural justice.
The court directed the prosecution to explain why a penalty should not be imposed for filing the appeals.
Jayabalakrishnan’s family expressed shock and disappointment over the order. The family said such decisions would weaken the common man’s faith in the judicial system and pointed out that the case had witnessed several dramatic twists and turns.
The order came on the same day that the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused’s father, a district judge who was also booked in connection with the crash. Justice Kauser Edappagath questioned the prosecution’s insistence on custodial interrogation when the judge had already undergone around six hours of questioning.
During the hearing, the High Court observed that the accused had cooperated with the investigation and could be directed to appear whenever required.
“He says he did not know that the car was taken… What do you want? You want to interrogate him? You want him in jail?” the court asked the Additional Director of Prosecution.
The court said the prosecution could approach it seeking cancellation of bail if the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation.
The judge’s 17-year-old son is accused of taking his father’s Mercedes-Benz and crashing into Jayabalakrishnan’s scooter, killing him.
Senior Advocate P Vijayabhanu, appearing for the judge along with John S Ralph, submitted that the minor had taken the vehicle without the accused’s knowledge.
The Cheranalloor police booked the judge under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, read with Sections 181, 183 and 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The High Court had earlier granted the judge interim protection from arrest. A detailed order is awaited.
(Edited by Dese Gowda with inputs from Dileep V Kumar)
