A sessions court in Kerala on Saturday criticised the police for not acting against social media posts revealing the identity of the minor teenager accused of driving a Mercedes-Benz car under the influence of alcohol and killing a scooterist.

The 17-year-old accused, the son of an additional district judge, was driving a Mercedes-Benz car when he hit a two-wheeler in Kochi's Cheranalloor in the early hours of October 25, killing the scooterist - one, Jayabalakrishnan.

Ernakulam Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan today heard pleas to cancel the bail granted on October 26 to the teenager.

During the hearing, the court took exception to the continued circulation of social media posts that revealed the teenager's identity.

Notably, 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 law (CCL), except with the permission of the competent authority.

"I will pass an order - direct the cyber police to take down every social media account and post that is revealing the identity of the CCL. This is a sessions court and a children's court. Why does the cyber police exist? How can this be allowed?" the judge asked today.

The court proceeded to order the police to submit a report on the action taken against such posts.

"The investigating officer is directed to produce the case diary and appear before the court on November 2. The cyber police shall submit a report on the action taken regarding the publication of the identity of the child in conflict with law (CCL) by various social media accounts and platforms," it ordered.

The matter is listed next on Monday, November 2.

The accused teenager was initially booked under Sections 281 and 106 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which are the offences of rash driving and causing death by negligence, and released on station bail.

After continued protests by the victim's family and local residents, the police added more serious 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).

The FIR also named the father of the teenager, an additional district judge who is currently posted at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Iranjalakuda in Thrissur district, as a co-accused.

The accused teenager was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) on October 26. Both the State prosecution and the victim's family have challenged the JJB's order before the sessions court.

When the matter was heard yesterday, the court took exception to the fact that both the State and the family of the deceased had revealed the accused teenager's name and address in their petitions. On the court's directions, the petitions were thereafter amended to conceal the teenager's name.

The State today maintained that the bail granted to the teenager should be cancelled.

“The accused had knowledge that his actions could result in an accident. He knew it was raining. It was the middle of the night. And his speedometer records are there teenager had several videos of driving on his Instagram page which he deleted after the accident)… only the CCL knows why he was driving without a licence, why he was outside his house driving at 2 am?" he argued.

The court, however, expressed reservations about whether there was any need to cancel bail and place the teenager in the JJB's custody.

"What is the investigating team intending to do if the bail is cancelled? What are those grounds exactly? ... Are you saying that in so many hours (after he was apprehended by the police and before his release on bail), the investigating team was not able to collect any evidence or information? Why do you want cancellation of bail. You say it is for the purpose of investigation. What does the investigation require?" the judge asked.

Counsel representing Jayakrishnan's family, meanwhile, told the court that the accused teenager himself may be at risk if he is not placed in the JJB's custody.

"There will be danger to the CCL if he is in the public. The feelings of the public are against the child. Social media is against the child. The danger is not from the family. But being in public will cause harm to the child's mental well-being," he said.

"Control your emotions and arguments. You are before a court of law ... You are not before the public. This is not social media. You are before a court of law. Stick to the provisions of law and submit relevant legal precedents," the judge advised the counsel, in response.

The family's counsel persisted that a wrong message would be sent to society if the boy continues to remain on bail.

"The court must consider the impact on society," he said.  

"What purpose will be served (by cancelling bail)?" the judge, however, continued to ask.

"Lots of children, 16 and 17 year olds are on social media. They are seeing all this. They will think they can commit such offences and that there won't be any consequences for their actions. The possibility of some conspiracy  cannot be ruled out," counsel representing the deceased man's family replied.

"Those are things to be considered at trial. This happened less than a week ago. You are arguing as if this is a final hearing. This is only a question of bail," the judge pointed out.

The judge also expressed serious concerns about the manner in which the investigation has proceeded in the present case.

"From the very inception of this crime, everything has been strange. He was given station bail because at first only rash and negligent driving offence was there. Then you added culpable homicide and took him before JJB. There is also a clear direction in the bail order that CCL shall co-operate with the investigation. Has the investigating officer filed an application before the JJB saying CCL is needed for custodial interview? ... This is a case of a child in conflict with law. This court has a duty to care for the right of the child as well. Yesterday, you filed a plea revealing every detail of the CCL. I allowed you to correct it and kept it today. Why is the investigation team acting like this in a serious case?" she asked.

The judge added that she wants to view the investigation records before passing orders, and asked the investigating officer to be present when the matter is heard next.

"I am having serious concerns and doubts regarding this investigation. Ask the investigating officer to submit the case diary and be present before the court on Monday. I want to peruse the case diary before passing any order ... There must be considerable grounds to cancel bail. Investigating officer must explain," the judge said.

Public Prosecutor Manoj G Krishnan represented the State.

[Live Coverage]