Kerala Court Refuses to Cancel Bail of Minor Accused in Kochi Mercedes Crash, Questions Police Investigation
An Ernakulam Sessions Court on November 5, 2026, dismissed appeals filed by the Kerala Government and the family of the deceased seeking cancellation of bail granted to a 17-year-old accused in the fatal Mercedes-Benz accident at Cheranalloor, Kochi.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan dismissed the challenges to the Juvenile Justice Board's decision granting bail to the minor on October 26, a day after the accident.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred during the early hours of October 25, 2026, when a Mercedes-Benz allegedly driven by the teenager collided with a scooter ridden by 55-year-old Jayabalakrishnan, a street food vendor. The victim died following the collision.
The police initially registered offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to rash driving and causing death by negligence. Subsequently, Section 105 of the BNS, concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was added along with relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Challenge to the Juvenile Justice Board's Bail Order
The State Government and the deceased's family separately challenged the Juvenile Justice Board's decision to release the minor on bail. The Sessions Court heard the appeals and reserved its decision before pronouncing the order on November 5.
During the proceedings, the court raised concerns about the investigation, including the repeated alteration of the FIR and alleged non-compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the applicable rules.
Court Raises Questions Over Police Conduct
The court questioned the investigating agency regarding compliance with statutory safeguards for children in conflict with law. It also raised concerns about the preparation of the mandatory social background report and the legal procedure followed in handling the juvenile accused.
The court further questioned the prosecution and investigating agency over procedural lapses, emphasising that police authorities must follow the prescribed legal framework rather than act under external pressure.
Protection of the Minor's Identity
The proceedings were conducted in-camera to protect the identity and privacy of the child in conflict with law. The court had also raised concerns about social media posts allegedly disclosing the minor's identity and directed appropriate action in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.
Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, restricts the disclosure of the identity of children involved in proceedings under the Act, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Legal Significance
The development highlights the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving juveniles, even when the allegations concern serious offences. It also reinforces the statutory obligation to protect the identity and rights of children in conflict with law while ensuring that investigations follow due process.
The dismissal of the bail-cancellation appeals does not amount to an acquittal. The criminal investigation and proceedings remain distinct from the question of whether the minor should continue to receive bail.