A 17-year-old accused is shielded by law from being named, yet the posts revealing minor’s identity in the Kochi Mercedes crash case are still circulating, and an Ernakulam court on Saturday asked the cyber police what they have done about it.
Kochi: Faulting the police for not acting against social media accounts that continue to reveal the identity of the 17-year-old accused in the fatal Kochi Mercedes-Benz crash, the Ernakulam Additional District and Sessions Court, which also sits as the Children’s Court, on Saturday, October 31, 2026, directed the cyber police to file a report on the action taken against such posts [State of Kerala v. Child in Conflict with Law (bail cancellation pleas)].
Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan was hearing the pleas of the State and the family of the deceased scooterist to cancel the bail granted to the teenager by the Juvenile Justice Board on October 26. The judge also directed the investigating officer to produce the case diary and appear in person on Monday, November 2.
What the Court said on the posts
Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, bars the disclosure of the identity of a child in conflict with law except with the permission of the competent authority. Taking exception to the social media posts that continue to name the teenager, the judge said in open court:
“I will pass an order – direct the cyber police to take down every social media account and post that is revealing the identity of the CCL. This is a sessions court and a children’s court. Why does the cyber police exist? How can this be allowed?”
The court then recorded in its order:
“The investigating officer is directed to produce the case diary and appear before the court on November 2. The cyber police shall submit a report on the action taken regarding the publication of the identity of the child in conflict with law (CCL) by various social media accounts and platforms.”
The identity question had surfaced at the previous hearing too, when the court objected to the State and the family of the deceased disclosing the teenager’s name and address in their petitions. On its direction, the petitions were amended to remove the name.
The crash and the charges
According to the prosecution, the teenager, the son of a judicial officer, was driving a Mercedes-Benz car when it hit a two-wheeler at Cheranalloor in Kochi in the early hours of October 25, killing the scooterist, Jayabalakrishnan. The prosecution alleges that the teenager was driving under the influence of alcohol and without a licence.
He was first booked under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), for rash driving and causing death by negligence, and was released on station bail. After protests by the family of the deceased and local residents, the police added Section 105 BNS (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) along with Sections 181, 183, 199A(1) and 199A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The father has been named as a co-accused in the FIR.
The Juvenile Justice Board granted the teenager bail on October 26, and the State and the family of the deceased have both challenged that order before the Sessions Court. The allegations are untested, the court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
The bail cancellation arguments
Public Prosecutor Manoj G Krishnan, for the State, pressed for cancellation of bail, arguing that the teenager knew his driving could cause an accident, as it was raining and the middle of the night, and questioning why he was driving without a licence at 2 am.
The judge questioned what purpose cancellation would serve:
“What is the investigating team intending to do if the bail is cancelled? What are those grounds exactly? … Why do you want cancellation of bail. You say it is for the purpose of investigation. What does the investigation require?”
Counsel for the family of the deceased argued that the teenager himself could be at risk if he was not placed in the custody of the Juvenile Justice Board, given public anger and social media sentiment, and that keeping him on bail would send a wrong message to society. The judge told counsel to stick to the provisions of law and relevant precedents, observing that such matters were for trial and that this was “only a question of bail”.
Doubts about the investigation
The judge also voiced serious concern about the course of the investigation, pointing to the initial station bail, the later addition of culpable homicide, and the absence of any application before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking a custodial interview despite the bail order requiring the teenager to cooperate:
“This is a case of a child in conflict with law. This court has a duty to care for the right of the child as well. … Why is the investigation team acting like this in a serious case?”
“I am having serious concerns and doubts regarding this investigation. … I want to peruse the case diary before passing any order … There must be considerable grounds to cancel bail. Investigating officer must explain.”
The bail cancellation pleas will be taken up next on November 2.
Why the order matters
Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act protects the identity of every child in conflict with law, however grave the allegation and however intense public interest in the case. The bar applies to newspapers, broadcasters and social media alike, and to parties in their own court filings. By calling on the cyber police to account for the posts, the Children’s Court has made clear that enforcing this protection is a police duty, not an afterthought.
The hearing also shows how a court weighs bail cancellation for a juvenile. Cancellation needs specific, considerable grounds tied to the investigation, not public sentiment or the seriousness of the outcome alone, and the court has signalled that it will test the State’s case against the case diary before deciding.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Child in Conflict with Law (pleas to cancel Juvenile Justice Board bail order of October 26, 2026)
Court: Additional District and Sessions Court (Children’s Court), Ernakulam
Presiding Judge: Additional District and Sessions Judge Kavitha Gangadharan
Date of Order: October 31, 2026
Next Date: November 2, 2026
Appearances: Public Prosecutor Manoj G Krishnan for the State; counsel for the family of the deceased
If you know of a child in need of care or protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.