The car that was involved in the fatal accident at Cheranalloor in Kochi (file)
| Photo Credit: THULASI KAKKAT
The Additional District and Sessions Court designated to try cases involving atrocities against women and children in Ernakulam, Keralam, on Thursday (November 5, 2026) dismissed the appeals seeking suspension of the bail granted to the 17-year-old involved in the Cheranalloor crash case that claimed a life, while coming down heavily on the police and prosecution.
Judge Kavitha Gangadharan questioned the very basis for the registration of the FIR against the teenager in conflict with law, pointing out that such registration is warranted only in offences carrying a punishment of seven years’ imprisonment or more. The multiple alterations made to the FIR also came in for criticism. The police were accused of showing scant regard for the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, with the court questioning the absence of the social background report mandated in cases involving juveniles. The court even read out the relevant provisions of the Act to the investigation officer, an Assistant Commissioner with the Crime Branch.
The court observed that the police are not expected to act beyond the law even under pressure. The judge also asked the prosecution to show reason for not imposing fine while dismissing the appeals.
Earlier, the court had directed the investigation officer to submit within an hour details of FIRs registered in the district or elsewhere in the State in connection with accidents involving juvenile drivers in which Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, had been invoked.
The court sought the data to append it to the order on the appeals filed by the prosecution and the family of the deceased against the bail granted to the teenager by the Juvenile Justice Board. She warned that the investigation officer would be held answerable if no FIRs had been registered elsewhere invoking BNS Section 105 in similar cases and if the provision had been invoked only in the present case. Though the officer submitted details of nine accident cases involving juveniles in the district, Section 105 had not been invoked in any of them.
The court was also critical of the investigating agency for filing the appeal against the bail in the wrong court instead of the court designated to try cases involving juveniles, the only such court in the district. The judge also sought to know from the prosecution whether it had any doubt that the Juvenile Justice Model Rules constituted the sole State government framework governing matters involving children in conflict with law.
Daughter of victim expresses dismay
Bhadrakeerthi R.J., daughter of the victim Jayabalakrishnan, expressed dismay over the verdict, which she said she “could not comprehend.”
“It was dramatic and full of twists. People of Keralam will have no faith in the courts any more. We were expecting a favourable verdict both from this court and the High Court, (which granted anticipatory bail to the judicial officer, the father of the juvenile accused). Issues that had never been raised until today were brought up by the court. However, we will continue our fight,” she said outside the court.
Published – November 05, 2026 04:11 pm IST
