Mercedes crash: Why Kerala court upheld bail to accused teenager

A Sessions Court in Kerala on Thursday refused to cancel the bail granted to a 17-year-old teenager who was involved in a car crash which killed a scooter rider.

The teenager, who is 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 rider, Jayabalakrishnan. He was granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board the very next day. The case, and the public outcry it caused, has occupied headlines ever since.

Jayabalakrishnan's family and the State Prosecution eventually challenged the grant of bail the Ernakulam Additional District and Sessions Court, which is designated to hear matters concerning children in conflict with the law.

However, Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan refused to cancel the bail.

Notably, the judge also flagged several issues in the manner in which the case was handled right from the beginning by the police, the Juvenile Justice Board, the State prosecution, and the family of the deceased as well.

Below are some of the main points noted by the Court in its judgment.

1. Wrong Court moved initially

Both the State and the victim's family first moved the Principal Sessions Court even though this Additional District and Sessions Court is the only court empowered in the entire district to hear appeals under the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).

Though those appeals were withdrawn and both parties filed the present pleas afresh before the correct forum, the Court noted that this was a procedural irregularity that ought not have occurred.

2. FIR was inappropriate in this case

The majority of the issues flagged by the Court fell under this category.

It observed that this was not a case where an FIR should have been filed, as there are child-sensitive methods of investigation prescribed under the law in cases involving a child in conflict with the law (CCL).

When a CCL is involved in a crime, Rule 8(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 comes into play. This provision says that FIRs can be registered only when a heinous offence is alleged to have been committed by the CCL.

In all other matters, the police is required to record information regarding the offence, prepare a social background report on the child, and forward it all to the JJB for hearing. Normal FIR and arrest procedures would not apply.

In the present case, the Court noted that the offence alleged in the FIR - culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 105 of the BNS - would fall under the category of "serious offence" as per the JJ Act, not a "heinous offence."

As such, this was not a case where an FIR should have been filed against the minor, the Court said.

"Nothing in Rule 8 prevents the police from investigating the occurrence, collecting evidence, identifying the person responsible or taking lawful action against adults who may be liable under the applicable law. What the Rule prohibits is the adoption of the ordinary FIR procedure against a child in circumstances where the Rule requires the prescribed child-sensitive procedure to be followed," it clarified.

The Court also noted that, going by the case records, the police knew that the person driving the vehicle was a CCL right from the beginning but yet filed an FIR, even though it was impermissible under the JJ Model Rules.

The Court added that the police did not comply with Rule 8(1) in this case even when it came to apprehending the CCL.

"The materials placed before this Court do not disclose any circumstance demonstrating that apprehension of the CCL was necessary in his own best interest. There is no material to show that the child was exposed to an immediate danger from which apprehension was required to protect him, or that his welfare necessitated taking him into police custody," the Court said.

Interestingly, before pronouncing the verdict, the Court spoke to the investigating officer (IO) and asked him to submit details of other such cases of minors involved in car accidents where FIRs have been registered under Section 105.

The IO submitted that there have been several such cases. The Court took a dim view of the same, as it indicated a repeated violation of Rule 8(1). It proceeded to direct all investigating agencies to scrupulously adhere to the provisions of the JJ Act and Model Rules.

"The statutory safeguards provided for children shall not be disregarded or diluted under the pressure of public agitation or otherwise," the Court said.

3. Procedure adopted by JJB to grant bail

In this case, the JJB considered the bail application under Section 480 of the BNSS even though the correct provision governing the release of CCLs on bail is Section 12 of the JJ Act.

However, the Court found that the reference to a wrong provision by itself does not vitiate the decision of the JJB to grant bail in this case.

4. No ground to deny bail established

Section 12 provides that bail may be refused only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that release might bring the CCL into association with any known criminal, expose the CCL to danger, or defeat the ends of justice.

The Court said that being from an influential or affluent family, being close to the age of majority, or the CCL's use of social media are not valid grounds to prevent the release of a CCL on bail.

The Court also said that the State and family were unable to point to any specific way in which the investigation was being hampered.

"The loss suffered by the family of the deceased is irreversible, and the Court is conscious of the pain and grievance of the appellants. However, the statutory rights of a child cannot be displaced by the gravity of the consequence alone," the Court said.

The Court further rejected the contention that the release of the CCL would send an undesirable message to society or undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, saying,

"Public confidence in the administration of justice is sustained by adherence to the law and not by departure from statutory safeguards in response to public sentiment. The Court is required to apply the law as enacted and cannot permit public reaction, however intense, to determine the legal consequences of an allegation against a child."

One of the interesting developments during the hearing of the appeals was a submission from the victim family's counsel that the family members themselves had staged agitations and made angry public statements.

The Court noted that the counsel seemed to be implying that the danger to the CCL would come from his own clients and said,

"The appellants cannot rely upon such circumstances, particularly when allegedly generated or aggravated by their own side, as a ground to seek cancellation of the bail granted to the CCL."

5. Violation of privacy of the CCL

Right from the first hearing, the Court had also raised concerns regarding the violation of Section 74 of the JJ Act, which prohibits disclosing the identity of any CCL.

It, therefore, directed the cyber police to take action againt all online content that reveals the identity of the teenager.

[Read Order]