Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, who is alleged to be the main accused in the suicide abetment case relating to dental college student Nithin Raj, approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail after the Sessions Court at Thalassery refused to grant him pre-arrest protection. Dr. Ram serves as the Head of the Department of Dental Anatomy at the college where Nithin Raj was studying. Another faculty member, Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar, was also named as an accused in the case, though she had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.
The prosecution alleged that Nithin Raj died by suicide due to continuous mental harassment by Dr. Ram. According to the allegations, the student was repeatedly humiliated in front of his classmates. It was further alleged that such conduct occurred despite the accused being aware that the student belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. Based on these allegations, offences were registered under provisions relating to abetment of suicide as well as provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In his plea before the High Court, Dr. Ram challenged the accusations and argued that the case against him lacked a proper factual foundation. He stated that the crime was initially registered on the basis of information provided by the college principal, who reported that the student had died by suicide. According to Dr. Ram, there was no mention at that stage of any harassment, torture, or misconduct on his part. He contended that the allegations linking him to the student’s death emerged only later and that the original information did not suggest any involvement by him.
The plea further stated that the complaint submitted by the student’s father was based on hearsay information. Dr. Ram argued that the complaint did not identify any motive explaining why he would have harassed the student. According to his submissions, there was no material indicating any reason for him to target Nithin Raj. He maintained that the allegations were unsupported by evidence and that the complaint failed to establish a connection between his conduct and the student’s death.
Dr. Ram also claimed that the complaint was influenced by persons who wanted to shield themselves from scrutiny. He stated that he belonged to a backward community and had come from another state to work at the institution. According to the plea, he had been subjected to pressure from an organized group that sought to extract money from him in the form of compensation. He argued that these circumstances contributed to his being falsely implicated in the case.
A major part of the defence focused on alternative circumstances that, according to Dr. Ram, had not been adequately investigated. He alleged that Nithin Raj had been involved in a honey-trap case as well as issues connected to a loan application. He argued that the investigating authorities failed to explore these aspects and instead concentrated exclusively on allegations against him. According to the plea, these matters were relevant to understanding the events leading up to the student’s death and deserved proper investigation.
The application also highlighted a dispute connected to a loan obtained through a mobile application. According to the version presented by Dr. Ram, the student had provided the contact details of a teacher while availing the loan. When repayment problems arose, repeated calls were allegedly made to the teacher by the lenders. The defence claimed that the matter eventually resulted in a complaint being made before the college authorities. The student was reportedly summoned and questioned regarding the issue. Dr. Ram argued that these events formed an important part of the background to the tragedy and should not be ignored by investigators.
The plea further emphasized that there was no suicide note implicating him in the student’s death. Dr. Ram also stated that no student had previously accused him of harassment. According to his submissions, there was no history of complaints from students alleging similar conduct. He argued that the absence of such evidence weakened the prosecution’s case and demonstrated that there was no justification for custodial interrogation.
Another argument raised in support of anticipatory bail concerned the manner in which the Sessions Court had evaluated the case. Dr. Ram contended that the lower court had been influenced by media coverage surrounding the incident rather than by the actual materials available in the case diary. He asserted that a forensic examination of the evidence collected during the investigation would indicate that the student’s death was not connected to any harassment allegedly committed by him. According to the plea, a proper assessment of the materials would show that the accusations lacked support.
Earlier, while considering the anticipatory bail applications of the accused, the Sessions Court had examined the allegations and the available witness statements. The court noted that the prosecution case involved allegations that the student was subjected to mental harassment and humiliation. It was also alleged that Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar had supported the actions attributed to Dr. Ram. The prosecution opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and argued that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were attracted in the case.
The Sessions Court considered whether there was prima facie material to support the allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After examining witness statements, the court observed that there was no material showing that caste-based abuse or caste-related slurs had been used by Dr. Ram. The court found that while the available materials suggested harsh and improper conduct, they did not establish caste-targeted humiliation. The witness statements did not indicate that the accused specifically targeted the student because of his caste. The court also observed that the conduct complained of appeared to be similar to the manner in which other students were treated.
With respect to the allegations against Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar, the Sessions Court found that there was no material showing caste abuse or conduct that would attract the relevant provisions relating to humiliation under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no prima facie material supporting the offences alleged under that legislation.
At the same time, the Sessions Court held that the question of whether the student’s suicide was linked to the alleged harassment required further investigation. It observed that custodial interrogation of Dr. Ram was necessary and therefore denied him anticipatory bail. However, the court granted pre-arrest bail to Dr. Sangeetha Nambiar, taking into account the nature of the allegations and the materials available against her.
Following the rejection of his application, Dr. Ram approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail. The High Court considered the plea and issued notice in the matter. The court sought the response of the State regarding the allegations and the grounds raised by the accused. The proceedings before the High Court therefore focused on whether Dr. Ram should be granted pre-arrest protection while the investigation continues.
The case has drawn attention because it concerns allegations that a student faced humiliation, discrimination, and mental harassment within an educational institution. The student’s family alleged that such conduct contributed to the circumstances leading to his death. The prosecution maintains that the actions attributed to the accused played a role in the events that resulted in the suicide. The defence, on the other hand, denies the allegations and argues that other factors have not been properly investigated. The anticipatory bail proceedings before the High Court center on these competing claims and on the question of whether the principal accused should receive protection from arrest pending further investigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.