Cheranalloor luxury car crash case: High drama marks hearing on plea to cancel teen driver’s bail

The Additional District and Sessions Court designated to try cases involving atrocities against women and children in Ernakulam on Monday (November 2, 2026) reserved its order on the criminal appeals against the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to grant bail to the 17-year-old accused involved in the Cheranalloor crash case that claimed a life.

The court is likely to pass order on November 5. Earlier, the court had witnessed high drama 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 considering the involvement of a child in conflict with law.

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. 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. Speaking to mediapersons after the in-camera proceedings, Mr.

Sreejith sought to play down the difference with prosecution and the court’s decision to order in-camera proceedings, describing it as “not unusual.” “Both the family and the prosecution have the same objective,” he said.

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.

On Saturday, 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. The cyber police reported to the court that action is being taken.