Clarifying its position, the court observed that the public prosecutor is an officer of the court and that its questions were intended only to clear doubts. It also pointed out that counsel for the de facto complainant had only the right to assist the prosecution.
Refuting the allegations, counsel for the deceased’s family submitted that nobody had obstructed the prosecution. Counsel said that when a document was served on the prosecutor, she refused to accept it, stating that there was no provision for receiving such a document and directing counsel to produce it before the court.
The court then directly asked the investigating officer whether he had faced any obstruction during the investigation.
The officer replied that he had been unable to interview the juvenile. The court questioned whether the appropriate course in such circumstances was to approach the JJB with an application seeking permission.
Taking serious note of the allegations concerning the prosecutor, the court referred to Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which deals with criminal contempt, including acts that prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings.
The court observed that allegations of interference with judicial proceedings were a serious matter.
The case relates to the fatal accident at Cheranalloor in the early hours of October 25, in which 55-year-old Jayabalakrishnan lost his life after being hit by a luxury car allegedly driven by the 17-year-old. The JJB subsequently granted bail to the juvenile, prompting the state government and the deceased’s children to approach the Additional District Court seeking cancellation of the bail order.