The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted anticipatory bail to an additional sessions judge who whose minor son was recently involved in a car crash that killed a scooterist on October 25.

Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order after noting that there was nothing to indicate that the accused judicial officer will not cooperate with the ongoing investigation.

"You have searched his house seized everything. This is something affecting the liberty of a person, whether District Judge or anyone. You have no case that he has not cooperated," the Court observed.

It also questioned why an arrest was necessary in this case.

"Why is this a special case? A 16-page objection? This is an unfortunate case no doubt… Let's assume that all your allegations are true at this stage and the offence is prima facie attracted, including Section 105 BNS…. Even then, why do you want to arrest him? Why do you want his custody?" Justice Edappagath asked the State's counsel.

The Court added,

"As a responsible officer of this Court, do you think that a District Judge will not cooperate?… The fact that you oppose the bail application shows that you want his arrest. Why is an arrest required?… You mean to say that he will speak the truth only under custodial interrogation? It is very unfortunate to hear it from a lawyer."

The Court proceeded to grant the accused judicial officer anticipatory bail.

Earlier, on October 29, the High Court had granted the accused judge interim protection from arrest while directing him to cooperate with the investigation.

The case involves allegations that a 17-year-old teenager drove his father's Mercedes-Benz car and hit a scooter, killing its driver, one Jayabalakrishnan (55).

A Juvenile Justice Board in Ernakulam granted bail to the minor on October 26, a day after the accident.

Appeals filed by the State and Jayabalakrishnan's family seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to the accused teenager are pending before a sessions court.

Meanwhile, the accused teenager's father, who is serving as a judge at a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT, moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.

The judicial officer was arraigned as an accused since he is the registered owner of the car that was driven by the accused teenager, and his guardian.

The FIR registered by the police includes offences punishable under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) read with Sections 181, 183, 199A(1), and 199A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA).

Section 199A provides that when a minor commits a motor vehicle offence, the guardian or vehicle owner is presumed to be responsible and can be prosecuted and punished, subject to statutory exceptions.

In his anticipatory bail plea, the accused judge claimed that he had no knowledge that his son had taken the vehicle from their premises. He maintained that he was asleep when the vehicle was taken and learnt about the accident only after receiving a phone call.

He further argued that Section 105 of the BNS requires necessary intention or knowledge that an act is likely to cause death, which cannot automatically be attributed to him merely because he is the minor's father.

The family of the deceased filed objections opposing any grant of anticipatory bail to the accused judge, alleging that his conduct immediately after the accident requires a thorough investigation. They alleged that the accused judge reached the accident spot in another vehicle and remained there for approximately three hours. They sought an investigation into the circumstances of his arrival and his interactions at the scene and whether any evidence was removed, altered or concealed.

After considering the rival arguments, the Court today granted the accused judge anticipatory bail.

The accused-judge is represented by Senior counsel P Vijaya Bhanu and advocate John S Ralph.

The victim's family is being represented by advocate MG Sreejith.

Editor’s note: Bar & Bench has chosen not to disclose the accused-judge’s name as the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits disclosure of any details that may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law.

[Read Live Coverage]