Cheranalloor crash case: court seeks data on BNS Section 105 invocations in accidents involving juvenile drivers

The car involved in a fatal accident at Cheranalloor in Kochi (file)

The Additional District and Sessions Court designated to try cases involving atrocities against women and children in Ernakulam, while hearing appeals seeking the suspension of bail granted to the 17-year-old involved in the Cheranalloor crash case that claimed a life, directed the investigation officer to submit within an hour data on FIRs registered in the district or elsewhere in the State in connection with accidents involving juvenile drivers in which Section 105 of the BNS, which prescribes punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, had been invoked.

Judge Kavitha Gangadharan sought the data to append it to the order on the appeals filed by the prosecution and the family of the deceased against the bail granted to the teenager by the Juvenile Justice Board. She warned the investigation officer, Assistant Commissioner, Crime Branch, that he would be held answerable if no FIRs had been registered elsewhere invoking BNS Section 105 in similar cases and if the provision had been invoked only in the present case.

The court was also critical of the investigation agency for filing the appeal against the bail before the Principal Sessions Court and not before the court designated to try cases involving juveniles. The judge also sought to know from the prosecution whether it had any doubt that the Juvenile Justice Model Rules constituted the sole State government framework governing matters involving children in conflict with law.

On Monday (November 2, 2026), the court had expressed displeasure over the prosecution and counsel for the victim’s family trading allegations and directed that further proceedings for the day be held in camera. The judge took the decision despite objections raised by the family’s counsel. Bhadra Keerthy, daughter of the deceased Jayabalakrishnan, had told the media that the family lacked confidence in the prosecution represented by Special Public Prosecutor P.A. Bindu.

On Monday, the prosecution raised the issue before the court, accusing the victim’s family of interfering with the independent investigation through contradictory statements made to the media. M.G. Sreejith, counsel for the family, accused the prosecution of non-cooperation while denying the allegation that the victim’s family was hampering the independent investigation. The decision to conduct the proceedings in camera came after Mr. Sreejith stated that he had certain matters to place before the court that could not be discussed in open proceedings.