Click the Play button to listen to article

A Kerala court on Saturday (October 31) directed the cyber police to take down the social media posts that are giving details about the 17-year-old accused in the fatal accident in Kochi involving a Mercedes-Benz.

According to the FIR registered by the Cheranalloor Police, the car rammed into the scooter ridden by 55-year-old street food vendor Jayabalakrishnan at around 2:00 am on Sunday (October 25) while he was returning home. 

Smt. Kavitha Gangadharan, Addl. District Judge, passed the direction while considering the appeals preferred by the State as well as the victim's family challenging the order of the Juvenile Justice Board granting bail to the minor/Child in Conflict with Law (CCL).

"The cyber police shall report the action taken on the alleged complaint raised by the counsel for the CCL regarding the publication of the identity of the CCL in various social media accounts and platforms," the court today ordered.

During the hearing today, the Court questioned why the cyber police took no action after social media accounts circulated videos and details of the accused.

It also expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the investigation was being undertaken and directed the investigating officer to appear before it on Monday (November 2) and produce the case diary for its perusal.

"I am having serious concern with how the investigating is progressing. I want to peruse the CD [case diary] before passing an order," the court had orally said. It also orally remarked that the investigation in the case has been progressing in a strange manner with the CCL being accused of Section 106 BNS and released on station bail and subsequently, on the same day, offence under Section 105 BNS was incorporated and he was produced before the JJB.

The court also questioned the prosecution as to why the investigating officer is insisting on cancelling the bail already granted and what purpose of the investigation would be served by the same:

"Already bail was granted. When it is sought to be cancelled, it is to be made clear why the investigation team wants to cancel bail. Interest of justice is not a ground. What purpose of investigation should be made clear."

The prosecution argued that the interviewing of the CCL is necessary since it is within his knowledge as to why he drove the car without licence at 2 am. However the court orally said:

"I'm not satisfied...'CCL shall cooperate with investigation' - there is a direction like that....Whether the investigation agency has approached the JJB for custodial interview?"

The case is posted to Monday (November 2) for the appearance of the investigation officer and for production of the case diary. The cyber police is also directed to submit an action taken report regarding the action against social media posts revealing identity of the CCL.

Yesterday, the Court had directed the State as well as the victim's family to remove the name of the juvenile from their pleas. The minor's father and the registered owner of the vehicle, a District Judge, has also been booked by the Police. The High Court has granted the judge interim protection from arrest.

Prosecution's arguments

Public prosecutor argued that the JJB did not consider many aspects while granting bail, including the previous conduct of the child-in-conflict with law (CCL), the inclusion of Section105 BNS [culpable homicide not amounting to murder], questions like how the juvenile learned to drive, he did not licence, etc. It was argued that the juvenile deleted evidences of the incident, including the videos posted by him.

It was pointed out that the car was being driven at high speed and multiple videos were taken by the CCL. She added that the CCL's age is relevant since he would turn 18 in 3 months. It was argued that there is a chance for committing the same crime. She contented that his custody in Observation Home is necessary. She argued that the JJB did not consider that the CCL posted reels of his driving/speed-o-meter on Instagram. It was also pointed out that the juvenile knew about the consequences of his action since it was raining and he was driving at a high speed.

Arguments by the victim's family

The arguments were focused on the proviso to Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It was argued that there is a likelihood of the CCL being recognised in a public place and that the minor's mental and physical wellbeing would be affected. He pointed out that there is case of the CCL being recognised in public and that the public would turn against him and therefore, it is for his own protection that the CCL should be sent to a Juvenile Home.

He argued that the bail was granted without applying judicial mind. He further argued that this case is giving a wrong message to society since minors will think they can do similar offences and there would be no consequences. It was also argued that the CCL was a habitual offender but no case has yet been registered against him.

CCL's arguments

It was argued that the appeals are not maintainable, pointing to the alternative provisions to cancel a bail granted.

Tags: