Justice Kauser Edappagath issued the direction while considering the judicial officer’s anticipatory bail application, observing that courts must follow the law rather than yield to public pressure. The judge was directed to cooperate fully with investigators and appear for questioning whenever required.
“The court cannot succumb to public outcry, unlike the government or the police. We will strictly go by the law,” Justice Edappagath orally observed during the hearing, questioning the necessity of arresting a serving judicial officer who had already undergone interrogation.
The court directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 1 pm on Thursday and subsequently whenever summoned. It also stipulated that questioning must comply with guidelines established by the Supreme Court governing investigations involving judicial officers.
The case concerns the death of Jayabalakrishnan, 55, a street-food vendor from South Chittoor, whose scooter was struck by a Mercedes-Benz allegedly driven by the judge’s underage son during the early hours of October 25.
The accident occurred on Container Road near Marapparambu in Cheranalloor. The luxury vehicle was registered in the judicial officer’s name, prompting police to include him among the accused while investigating the circumstances surrounding the teenager’s access to the car.
Senior advocate P Vijayabhanu, representing the judge, submitted that his client had appeared before investigators on Wednesday and undergone more than four hours of questioning. Police subsequently issued another notice requiring his attendance.
Justice Edappagath questioned why custodial interrogation was necessary when the petitioner had already appeared voluntarily and remained available to investigators.
“He is a judicial officer. He will cooperate with the investigation. Why do you want to arrest him?” the court remarked, indicating that the prosecution had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for immediate detention.
The victim’s family opposed the anticipatory bail application, alleging that the judicial officer had interfered with evidence after learning about the accident. The allegation remains disputed and has not been established through judicial findings.
The court permitted the family to participate in the proceedings and sought the State’s response to the petition. The interim order does not terminate the investigation or amount to a final determination of the judge’s anticipatory bail application.
The deceased man’s relatives expressed disappointment with the decision while acknowledging their respect for the judicial process. They indicated that further legal steps would be considered after consultation with their counsel.
The judge maintained in his application that he had no knowledge of his son taking the Mercedes-Benz from their residence. He claimed he was asleep when the teenager allegedly removed the vehicle without permission.
According to his petition, he learnt about the accident after receiving a telephone call at approximately 2.14 am. His defence argued that vehicle ownership and his relationship with the minor did not automatically establish criminal responsibility for culpable homicide.
The police have invoked Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, alongside provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act concerning driving offences and liability arising from violations committed by juveniles.
Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for liability of a vehicle owner or guardian when a juvenile commits a motor vehicle offence, subject to statutory exceptions. The precise application of those provisions remains a matter for investigation and judicial examination.
(The article ‘HC shields judge from crash arrest’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
