The car involved in a fatal accident at Cheranalloor in Kochi (file) | Photo Credit: Thulasi Kakkat 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 luxury car crash in Keralam that claimed a life, witnessed high drama on Monday (November 2, 2026) as the prosecution and counsel for the victim’s family traded allegations.Not impressed by the turn of events and the exchange of accusations, Judge Kavitha Gangadharan said that further proceedings would be held in-camera in the afternoon, considering the involvement of a child in conflict with law. The petitions will be taken up after the court finishes hearing the remaining cases listed for the day.
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.
Terming it a serious allegation, the judge sought clarification from the investigation officer, who had been directed by the court on Saturday (October 31, 2026) to produce the case diary on Monday, on whether such interference had indeed occurred.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 court noted that the Special Public Prosecutor had been serving in the court for seven years and observed that any grievances should have been raised before the court. 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.The investigation officer submitted that the juvenile accused needed to be interrogated, prompting the court to ask whether moving an application before the Juvenile Justice Board would suffice for the purpose.Meanwhile, the Special Investigation Team has reportedly decided to probe the alleged destruction of evidence in the case. While hearing the criminal appeals filed by the prosecution and the victim’s family against the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to grant bail to the 17-year-old accused, the court had directed the cyber police to remove content identifying the accused from social media and initiate action against those responsible for disseminating it.
Published - November 02, 2026 02:42 pm IST