The Crime Branch has intensified its investigation into the car crash in Kochi that killed Jayabalakrishnan, a roadside eatery owner, with officials examining the role of the Additional Sessions Judge who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident.

The judge’s 17-year-old son was allegedly driving the Mercedes-Benz that hit Jayabalakrishnan in Cheranalloor in the early hours of October 25. The probe has gained significance amid allegations that the car’s official designation board was removed in the judge’s presence shortly after the crash.

District Crime Branch officers have questioned the judge twice and interviewed his son on two occasions. They are analysing evidence collected so far, including digital data retrieved from mobile phones and laptops seized during a search at the judge’s residence. Investigators plan to question the judge again and interview the teenager further after the digital forensic reports are finalised.

Meanwhile, the Additional Sessions Court, hearing an appeal seeking cancellation of the teenager’s bail, has directed the investigating officer to appear on Monday with the case diary. The court also ordered the cyber police to remove the teenager’s photograph, name and other identifying details from social media and submit a report on the action taken.

Questioning the investigating officer’s failure to act despite the circulation of the teenager’s photograph and other details online, the court said judicial proceedings should not be guided by public sentiment. It also told the lawyer representing Jayabalakrishnan’s family to restrain his emotional outbursts after he argued that public sentiment should be considered.

The court further asked whether the police had approached the Juvenile Justice Board for permission to interview the teenager. It clarified that such an interaction should be described as an “interview” rather than “questioning” and that the teenager should be referred to as a “child in conflict with the law”, rather than an accused.

The prosecution has revised its appeal to mask the teenager’s name and remove his address, following the court’s directions. His lawyer told the court that videos and personal details had been removed from social media and that the teenager’s Instagram account had been taken down to protect the family’s privacy.

The court cautioned that removing the video showing the teenager driving could amount to destruction of evidence.