Instagram video deleted by 17-year-old driver? Court responds to Cheranalloor accident case

KOCHI: On Monday, the Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court will hear the prosecution's plea to cancel the bail of a 17-year-old involved in a vehicle accident that resulted in the death of street-food stall owner Jayabalakrishnan. The court directed the investigating officer to appear, noting that the personal details of the teenager—who was driving the car—got circulated on social media. The case diary must also be produced.

The court questioned the silence shown by police despite the circulation of the 17-year-old's personal information on social media. Previously, the court had pointed out several flaws in the petition submitted by the police; a corrected version was filed by the prosecution on Saturday. This revised petition does not contain the teenager's name or personal details.

The prosecution pointed out that the accused had taken a selfie while driving, with one hand off the steering wheel. Despite heavy rain, the car was driven at a speed of 108 km/h. The Juvenile Justice Board granted bail while the investigation was still in its preliminary stages. The Board failed to take into account that the 17-year-old had posted clips of the speedometer on Instagram while driving; the prosecution requested that this matter be examined.

The court clarified that if the 17-year-old deleted a video from Instagram immediately after being released on bail, it would amount to the destruction of evidence. The defence argued that the Instagram account was deleted out of concern for the family's privacy.

The family of the victim, Jayabalakrishnan, argued that the Juvenile Justice Board lacks the authority to consider a bail plea in a case involving homicide. They also pointed to the rising public sentiment surrounding the incident. However, the court stated that it is the judiciary—not the general public or social media—that hears and adjudicates the case. Allegations were raised that the police first contacted the 17-year-old’s father—who is a judge—and that evidence was subsequently destroyed. The court clarified that if a minor is involved in an incident, the parents or guardians are the appropriate parties to be notified first.