Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Doctor Accused Of Abetting Suicide Of Girlfriend By Making Dowry Demand

The Kerala High Court on Friday allowed the bail plea moved by Dr. Ruvais, who had been accused of abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana. 

Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, died by suicide due to financial constraints faced by her family, and their failure to meet the alleged demands for exorbitant dowry sought by Ruwais.

It is alleged that Ruwais' family had demanded 150 sovereigns of gold, 15 acres of land, and a BMW car from Shahana's family, which the latter could not meet. When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had suspended Ruwais' medical license for abetting Dr. Shahana's suicide.

Ruwais was thereafter charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry').

Taking note that Ruvais has been in custody since December 7, 2023, Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary for the purposes of investigation, and that he could be granted bail. 

"The allegations against the petitioner are no doubt serious. I had also observed while granting bail to the 2nd accused in the case (Ruvais' father), that there are clear allegations against the petitioner in the suicide note recovered from the apartment where the deceased was staying. However, as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a condition under Section 306 IPC can be sustained only if there are clear indications that the petitioner had the mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide, and the actions of the petitioner had left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide," the Court observed. 

The Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner's father who was also the second accused in the case.

In the bail application moved through Advocate Nireesh Mathew, Ruwais averred that there was no material in the present case to connect him with the present offence. He submitted that only a proposal of marriage had taken place between the parties.

The petitioner stated that his father had said that the marriage could be conducted only after completion of education, which was not acceptable to the victim, and that the latter was instigating the petitioner to marry her which he denied to follow his father's advice.

He added that no agreement or consent with regard to dowry had taken place between the parties.

Ruwais submitted that as per Section 306 IPC, the suicide of the person ought to be due to 'immediate provocation or instigation' from another person, which had not occurred in the present case. He said that he had no intention to hurt the victim's feelings, but on the contrary, had expressed his bona fide desire to marry her.

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner also attempted impress upon the Court that his career and future would be spoilt if he was not granted bail. He further submitted that his laptop, car, and other articles had been seized and that there was no scope for him to interfere with the investigation process. He thus sought grant of bail for the purposes of continuing his study alone, even with stringent conditions imposed such as him not leaving the College and hostel premises. 

Significantly, the petitioner's counsel also told the Court that Dr. Shahana ought to have been more careful and not resorted to extreme measures such as suicide.

The prosecution on the other hand, opposed the grant of bail. It was added that the decision as to whether the petitioner could be reinstated in service would have to be considered by the Disciplinary Committee in consulation with the Department of Health, Government of Kerala, and the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The Counsel submitted that the petitioner's case to release him from detention in order to continue his studies was not a ground for grant of bail, since the decision as to whether the petitioner could continue the course was yet to be taken. 

The Court while granting bail to Ruvais' subject to certain conditions, thus clarified that the grant of bail ought not to be seen as the entitlement of the petitioner to claim reinstatement, and that the same ought to be decided only in accordance with the applicable regulations. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756

Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Bail Appl. 11024 of 2023