The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 22) voiced serious concerns over the police investigation into the suicide of dental student Nithin Raj, orally observing that there appeared to be a “large conspiracy” involving senior police officials in the manner in which the arrest of the prime accused was handled.

Justice A. Badharudeen made the remarks while considering an interlocutory application filed by the victim's mother seeking relaxation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) on communication of grounds of arrest, in her son's case.

The application was moved in the backdrop of the arrest and subsequent release of Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, the first accused in the abetment-to-suicide case.

Dr. Ram, Head of the Department of Dental Anatomy at Kannur Dental College, was arrested by the Crime Branch from Karnataka on July 20 after allegedly evading arrest for nearly 100 days. However, upon being produced before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thalassery, he was released after the Court found that the investigating agency had failed to properly communicate the grounds of arrest to him, as required by the Supreme Court's recent directions.

The victim's mother argued that the safeguards laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah should not be permitted to be misused by accused persons who have actively evaded arrest.

Questioning the conduct of the police, the High Court observed that the accused had effectively enjoyed the benefit of avoiding arrest for a considerable period and remarked that the authorities appeared to have made no genuine attempt to apprehend him earlier.

“No efforts you have taken. Your officials in fact called out to the accused and enjoyed his benefit. Ultimately, they have done everything to avoid the arrest and all to wait for the arrest. The investigating officer is a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The offence is very serious. Do you think the DySP is not aware that the grounds of arrest should be communicated? Now, he is well aware that the grounds of arrest must be communicated,” the Court orally observed.

Expressing concern over the manner in which the investigation had progressed, the Court further remarked:

“I think there is a large conspiracy from the top officials of the State. There must be an investigation to find out the conspiracy. Otherwise, this Court may have to step in. No doubt about it. This is a very, very pitiable state of affairs. Justice denied to a family of weaker section. They suffered, and this is an administrative failure of the case.”

The Court also questioned whether there had been any similar instance in the past fifteen years where the investigating agency had failed to communicate the grounds of arrest.

It thus directed the investigating officer, who arrested the accused, to appear before the Court with all relevant documents that had been produced before the Special Court at the time of the accused's production. The officer has also been directed to file an affidavit explaining compliance with the Supreme Court's directions governing arrest procedures by Friday.