The Kerala High Court on Thursday issued an order granting interim protection from arrest to a judicial officer serving at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Iranjalakuda, following a fatal car crash involving his 17-year-old son. The ruling, delivered by Justice Kauser Edappagath, marks a significant development in the ongoing investigation into the incident that occurred in Kochi’s Cheranalloor area on October 25, which resulted in the death of a scooter rider identified as Jayabalakrishnan. The judge, who was subsequently named as an accused in the First Information Report (FIR) filed by local law enforcement, had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail to prevent custodial detention while the investigation proceeds.

Under the terms of the interim order, the Kerala Police are prohibited from arresting the applicant until further judicial instructions are issued. However, the Court underscored that the relief provided is conditional, requiring the judge to appear before the investigating officer as mandated. The Court specified that the judge must present himself for interrogation at 1:00 pm, and continue to cooperate with any subsequent summons issued by the police. Furthermore, the Court explicitly directed that all interrogation sessions must strictly adhere to the established procedural guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India, ensuring that the questioning process remains within the bounds of constitutional protections and legal decorum.

Balancing Procedural Accountability and Judicial Status

During the proceedings, Senior Counsel P. Vijaya Bhanu, representing the accused judge, emphasized that his client had already demonstrated a commitment to transparency and cooperation. Bhanu informed the Court that the judge had voluntarily appeared before the police the previous day, undergoing an extensive interrogation process that lasted for over four hours. Despite this, the defense noted that the investigating authorities had issued a second notice requiring further attendance, prompting the urgent filing of the anticipatory bail plea.

The bench expressed notable skepticism regarding the necessity of continued custodial interrogation , particularly given the applicant's professional standing and his demonstrated willingness to assist in the probe. During the hearing, the Court remarked on the nature of the police’s investigative tactics, questioning why multiple sessions were deemed essential and whether the threat of arrest was a proportionate measure in this context. The Court noted, "What was the need to interrogate him for 4 hours and now for further interrogation? Why is his arrest required? He is a judicial officer . He will co-operate with the investigation." By highlighting these points, the Court signaled a cautious approach toward the necessity of custodial measures when the accused is a member of the judiciary who is purportedly willing to participate in the fact-finding mission.

Contested Narratives and the Path Forward

The hearing also highlighted the intense emotional and legal stakes involved, as the legal representatives for the victim’s family vehemently opposed the plea for anticipatory bail. Counsel for the victim’s heirs alleged that the accused had engaged in the tampering of evidence immediately following the notification of the accident. Such claims, if substantiated, would represent a significant complication for the defense, as evidence destruction is a serious charge that could weigh heavily against the granting of bail. Despite these contentions, the Court maintained that its current duty was to remain anchored strictly to the principles of law.

Justice Edappagath affirmed that the judicial process must be governed by the legal merits of the application, ultimately choosing to grant the interim protection while demanding further documentation. To ensure a balanced review, the Court directed the state prosecutor to formally furnish the government's response and any official instructions regarding the bail application. This ensures that the state’s perspective, as well as the progress of the current investigation, is thoroughly documented and reviewed by the bench before a final decision on the bail is rendered.

The case originated from a collision in Cheranalloor involving a Mercedes-Benz driven by the judge’s minor son. The severity of the crash, which resulted in the immediate death of the two-wheeler driver, sparked significant public concern and led to the police registering an FIR against the judge. The FIR includes several criminal offenses, the specifics of which are currently being assessed by investigators. The judge, who is based in the Thrissur district, finds himself at the center of a complex legal struggle that pits the administrative responsibilities of his office against the criminal allegations arising from his minor son's actions.

As the matter stands, the interim protection serves as a temporary shield, maintaining the status quo until the state files its formal response. The legal community continues to observe the proceedings closely, as the case underscores the delicate intersection of personal liability, family responsibility, and judicial oversight in cases involving high-profile government figures. The next hearing is expected to focus on the results of the initial police interrogation and the validity of the evidence tampering allegations brought forward by the victim’s representatives. For now, the judge remains at liberty under the condition of his continued appearance and cooperation with the ongoing investigative proceedings initiated by the state authorities.