A Kerala judge has applied for anticipatory bail after being named in a fatal accident case where his minor son drove the family Mercedes-Benz. The incident, which killed a 55-year-old scooter rider, has sparked significant scrutiny over initial police procedures. State authorities are now pushing for a stronger legal investigation, including the transfer of the case to the District Crime Branch.
A Kerala judge has petitioned the state High Court for anticipatory bail following a fatal road collision involving his minor son. The incident resulted in the death of 55-year-old Jayabalakrishnan, a roadside eatery operator, after his scooter was struck from behind by the judge's luxury Mercedes-Benz vehicle. In his legal application, the judge states that he was unaware that his minor son had taken the vehicle and only learned of the accident after receiving a phone call.
The case has prompted a strong response from state authorities regarding procedural transparency and institutional accountability. Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala addressed the Kerala Assembly to confirm that the initial handling of the case by local law enforcement is under review. Officials expressed concern that the police initially applied only bailable sections of the law. Furthermore, the Home Minister questioned the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to grant bail to the minor involved in the crash and has instructed the Director General of Police to pursue the cancellation of that bail.
Legal proceedings have now shifted focus toward the liability of the vehicle owner. Law enforcement has formally named the judge as an accused under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which holds guardians or vehicle owners responsible for offenses committed by minors driving their vehicles. Given the high-profile nature of the case, the investigation has been transferred to the District Crime Branch to ensure a thorough review. The Kerala High Court has granted the necessary authorization for the police to proceed with charges against the judicial officer. The government has clarified that the High Court maintains the authority to decide on disciplinary actions, including the potential for suspension.
For observers of institutional governance, the key monitorable will be the progress of the investigation now under the District Crime Branch. The case highlights the importance of clear procedural adherence in instances of minor-involved accidents and the enforcement of guardian liability laws. The upcoming hearings in the High Court will be critical in determining the next steps regarding the anticipatory bail application and the broader legal status of the accused.