The appeals against bail granted to the minor accused in the Kochi Mercedes crash that killed a scooterist will be heard in camera, with the Sessions Court directing authorities to protect the teenager’s identity under the Juvenile Justice Act.
The decision was taken when the appeals filed by the State and the victim’s family were heard by the Additional District and Sessions Court in Ernakulam. The court also directed the cyber police to act against social media posts that reveal the identity of the 17-year-old accused.
The teenager is accused of driving a Mercedes-Benz that struck a two-wheeler in Cheranalloor, Kochi, during the early hours of October 25. The crash killed Jayablakrishnan, a scooterist who owned a roadside eatery. The Sessions Court decided to continue the proceedings in camera to protect the privacy of the child in conflict with the law.
Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with the law, except with permission from the competent authority. The court’s direction places the ongoing legal contest within that statutory privacy framework while the State and the victim’s family challenge the bail order.
The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail to the accused on October 26. He was initially charged under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to rash driving and causing death by negligence. Following protests by the victim’s family seeking justice, police added more serious charges under Section 105 of the BNS, relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The police also added Sections 181, 183, 199A(1) and 199A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The FIR named the teenager’s father, an additional district judge posted at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Irinjalakuda, Thrissur district, as a co-accused.
The case has drawn attention not only because of the fatal crash but also because of the positions held by the accused’s father and the legal questions surrounding bail, the treatment of a minor accused and the rights of the victim’s family. The Ernakulam court handling the appeals witnessed heated exchanges between the prosecution and the counsel representing the victim’s family during the proceedings.
The latest order does not determine the appeals or the teenager’s guilt. It establishes that further hearings on the bail challenge will take place in camera, while the cyber police are expected to pursue posts that breach the statutory protection of the accused’s identity.
