Probe into judge’s conduct

The Crime Branch is examining an Additional Sessions Judge’s actions immediately after a fatal Mercedes-Benz collision in Kochi, including an allegation that the vehicle’s official designation board was removed in his presence.

The inquiry concerns the October 25 crash at Cheranalloor that killed Jayabalakrishnan, 55, who operated a roadside eatery. Investigators believe the judge’s 17-year-old son was driving the car when it struck the victim’s scooter on Container Road early that morning.

Officers have interviewed the judge twice and conducted two interviews with his son. Investigators are reviewing material gathered during a search of the judge’s residence, including data from seized mobile phones and laptops. Further interviews are expected after forensic examination of the devices is completed.

The allegation concerning the designation board has become a focus of scrutiny because it raises questions about what happened at the scene after the collision. Whether anyone deliberately removed or concealed evidence remains a matter for investigation. No judicial finding establishing interference has been announced.

The judge, who owns the Mercedes-Benz, has been named in the criminal case under provisions governing offences committed by juvenile drivers. He has maintained that his son took the vehicle without his knowledge or permission. That explanation is material to the investigation because the Motor Vehicles Act provides a defence for an owner or guardian who establishes lack of knowledge or appropriate precautions.

The Kerala High Court granted the judge interim protection from arrest while considering his anticipatory bail application. His counsel argued that he had already cooperated with investigators and that electronic devices and other material had been seized from his home. The court sought the prosecution’s position on the necessity of custodial action.

Separately, an Additional Sessions Court hearing the State’s appeal against bail granted to the teenager has directed the investigating officer to appear on Monday with the case diary. The direction follows scrutiny of the investigation and the manner in which the teenager’s identity has been handled in public proceedings.

The court ordered cyber police to remove photographs, the teenager’s name and other identifying details circulating on social media and submit an action report. It questioned why investigators had not intervened earlier to protect the child’s identity, which is subject to safeguards under juvenile justice law.

The court also directed that the teenager be described as a child in conflict with the law rather than as an accused, and asked whether investigators had obtained permission from the Juvenile Justice Board before interviewing him. The prosecution subsequently amended its appeal to remove identifying particulars.

Counsel representing the teenager said material revealing his identity had been removed from social media and that his Instagram account had been taken down. The court nevertheless cautioned that deleting a video depicting him driving could amount to destruction of evidence, underscoring the distinction between protecting a child’s identity and preserving material relevant to the case.

The victim’s family has sought cancellation of the teenager’s bail and accountability for the circumstances surrounding the collision. His wife has also sought to participate in the State’s appeal. The court has emphasised that its decisions must be governed by law rather than public sentiment.

The case was initially registered by Cheranalloor police under provisions relating to rash driving and causing death by negligence. Following protests over the teenager’s release on station bail, police invoked a more serious provision concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Juvenile Justice Board subsequently granted him bail.