Dental Student Suicide: Kerala Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Prime Accused College HOD, Grants Relief To Second Accused Professor
The Sessions Court, Thalassery on Saturday (April 25) denied anticipatory bail to Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, who is the prime accused in the suicide abetment case of Dental College student Nithin Raj.
The Court, however, granted pre-arrest bail to Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar, who is arrayed as the second accused.
Sri. Vimal J., Additional Sessions Judge - IV passed the common order.
Dr. Ram is the Head of Department of Dental Anatomy at Kannur Dental College where Nithin Raj was enrolled in and Dr. Nambiar is a professor there.
The allegation is that the deceased student committed suicide due to the constant mental harassment of Dr. Ram. It is further alleged that Dr. Ram humiliated the deceased in front of his classmates, knowing fully well that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste community. Dr. Nambiar is accused of supporting the acts of Dr. Ram.
The offences alleged against them are those under Section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Dr. Ram's counsel argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He contended that Nithin had borrowed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from an online Loan App and he had given the reference number of another professor of the college due to the threats made by the members of the Loan App.
While inquiring into this, the deceased was called into the Principal's room where the professor had told that she was going to file a cyber complaint and it was following this incident that the deceased committed suicide, it is stated.
Dr. Ram's counsel told that he had been arrayed in the case without proper investigation and that he is being subjected to media trial on a daily basis. He denied that any casteist slurs were made and claimed to be a member of Bajethri caste.
On behalf of Dr. Nambiar, it was argued that she had no role in the incident and there is no specific allegation against her. It was also pointed out that she was not in college on the date of the incident.
The prosecution opposed the bail plea and pointed out that as per Section 18A, anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Certain incidents were also pointed out by the prosecutor, who contended that the actions of the accused were intended to harm the deceased because he belonged to SC community.
The father of the deceased was also represented by a counsel, who argued that Nithin committed suicide due to the mental harassment of Dr. Ram. He also pointed out that Bajethri is an OBC community and that Dr. Ram has falsely mentioned that it was a ST community in his bail application.
The Court relied on Apex Court decisions to come to the conclusion that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail to those accused under the SC/ST Act and bail can be granted when there are no prima facie materials showing commission of the offence.
Next, it considered whether there is any prima facie case to show that the accused persons committed the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act. Looking at the witness statements, the Court opined that there was no caste-based abuse or use of caste name by Dr. Ram.
"The materials presently available only indicate harsh, insulting and improper conduct on the part of the petitioner, but not caste-targeted humiliation. There is no whisper of a statement from any witness to the effect that the first accused used caste slurs or casteist remarks to attack the deceased. It is true that the accused used to ridicule all the students for variety of reasons such as not bringing textbooks and answering questions. The statements of the students themselves reveal that 1st accused did not specifically target the deceased, Nithin Raj. In fact, his behaviour was common to all students. Therefore, there is nothing on record to prima facie indicate that the verbal abuse by the first accused was motivated solely by the fact that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. There is absolutely no prima facie evidence to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act," the Court remarked.
Looking at the witness statements, the Court opined that no caste abuse was done by the second accused Dr. Nambiar and the same will not even attract ingredients of even humiliation or abuse.
Therefore, it remarked that there are no prima facie materials to attract the offence alleged under the SC/ST Act.
Finally, the Court observed that the question whether the deceased committed suicide due to the harassment of the accused is to be ascertained during investigation.
The Court further remarked that custodial interrogation of the first accused Dr. Ram is necessary and denied his bail plea. It then granted bail to Dr. Nambiar on conditions.
It also made a passing remark that there is substance in the contention of the accused that there has been excessive media trial in the case.
Case Nos: BA Nos. 444/2026 and 451/2026
Case Title: Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Anr. & Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar v. State and Anr.
Counsel for the petitioners:
Counsel for the respondents: Vinod Raghavan