Kerala court upholds bail granted to judge’s son in Mercedes hit-and-run: ‘Public sentiment cannot…’

Public sentiment cannot authorise the investigating agency to adopt a procedure contrary to law, a court in Ernakulam has said as it upheld the bail granted to the minor accused in the October Mercedes-Benz hit-and-run case.

Meanwhile, the Kerala High Court on Thursday granted pre-arrest bail to the minor’s father, an additional district court judge, noting that the prosecution had not attributed “any direct criminal act on him”.

On the same day, the additional district court criticised the police action in proceeding against the child in conflict with law (CCL) through an FIR, stating that apprehending him was contrary to Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Model Rules.

The court said a CCL is entitled to bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, irrespective of whether the alleged offence is bailable or non-bailable, or classified as petty, serious or heinous.

“Public sentiment, agitation, media attention or any demand for a particular outcome cannot authorise the investigating agency to adopt a procedure contrary to law. 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,” Judge Kavitha Gangadharan said on Thursday.

The family of the deceased person as well as the state government had moved the district court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the CCL by the JJ Board.

The court observed that the victim’s family is entitled to raise their grievances and pursue appropriate remedies. However, their grievance cannot be a ground to curtail the child’s statutory entitlement to bail. The court cautioned the investigating agency against diluting or disregarding the safeguards available to children under the JJ Act, even in cases that trigger public agitation or outrage.

Story continues below this ad

A 57-year-old two-wheeler rider was killed on October 25 after the luxury car, allegedly being driven by the minor son of the additional district judge, rammed into his vehicle.

‘No direct criminal act attributed’

The judge has been named as an accused in the case under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicle (MV) Act, which deals with offences by juveniles and the responsibility of vehicle owners. The judge had argued that he was not privy to the son leaving home in the luxury car.

Granting him pre-arrest bail, the HC bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath said, “At any rate, the prosecution does not attribute any direct criminal act or mens rea on the applicant (judge). The only allegation is that the applicant allowed the CCL to drive the vehicle, knowing well that he did not possess a valid licence. The said disputed fact is a matter to be proved during trial.’’

The court also noted that the accused judge had already been interrogated for six hours over two days, and that police had searched his home, seized electronic devices and the vehicle. Hence, his custodial interrogation was not necessary, the HC said.