Act Of Instigation Was Prima Facie Pre-Planned, Premeditated: Kerala Court While Denying Relief To CPM Leader Accused Of Abetting ADM's Suicide

While denying pre-arrest bail to Divya, Thalassery Sessions Court Judge K.T. Nisar Ahammed observed that there is prima facie evidence suggesting that she engaged in a pre-planned and premeditated act to instigate ADM Naveen Babu.

Court said, “Here, the admitted facts and circumstances , prima facie clearly shows that the act of the accused was pre-planned and premeditated. It is well evident that she herself contacted the Bureau Chief of the local Television channel and requested to cover the function, in which she was not even invited. She got it circulated and published. So the above act is clearly an instigation.”

As per the case registered by the police, ADM Naveen Babu allegedly committed suicide due to public humiliation from Divya during his farewell function. ADM Naveen Babu was given a farewell function by his colleagues and subordinates when he got transferred to his native district, Pathanamthitta.

It is alleged that Divya who came uninvited to the farewell function gave a speech accusing the deceased of corruption in connection with the NOC for opening a fuel outlet. It is also alleged that Divya made the speech and left the function before the memento was handed over to the deceased to humiliate him. It is also alleged that Divya invited local Television channel to cover this event and she shared the video on social media. The crime was registered at Kannur Town Police Station under Section 108 of the BNS for abetment of suicide.

Divya had argued that she spoke at the function to ensure that public servants give speedy services to the citizens. It was stated that she had no intent to hurt anyone or abet the commission of suicide. It is also alleged that the report was filed by the police due to political pressure. She submitted that she would co-operate with the investigation. It was also submitted that she has a daughter studying in 10^th standard and aged sick parents.

On the other hand, the wife of ADM Naveen Babu submitted that Divya instigated her husband's suicide by publicly humiliating him. It was argued that this was a pre-meditated and intentional act since she called the media to telecast the speech and also circulated it. It was also contended that Divya threatened her husband in the concluding part of the speech. It was stated that for a man of honor, his integrity is more precious than his own life.

The Court found that Divya attended the farewell function uninvited, and found that there is prima facie evidence that she invited the media to cover it.

Court said, “It is beyond my comprehension, what is the business of this petitioner/accused to attend a purely private inhouse function, uninvited and that too by inviting media. The above fact clearly shows the malafide on the part of the petitioner. She has attended the function, uninvited, invited media people, got her speech recorded, telecasted, and circulated even at Pathanamthitta, the native place of the deceased and where he was transferred.”

The Court found that the acts of Divya prima facie shows that this was pre planned and premediated. It noted that calling media people to cover her speech and circulating it would amount instigation as defined under Section 45 (a) of the BNS. It also noted that the intent of the petitioner is also evident from her acts of going uninvited to a function and making a speech and circulating it.

The Court further observed that of Divya had complaint against ADM Naveen Babu, her remedy was to approach appropriate law enforcement authority, instead of taking law into her own hands.

Court said, “What was expected from a public servant like the petitioner herein who has got vast experience, is to approach the proper forum or authority. Instead of doing so, under the guise of fighting against corruption, she did the alleged act, pre-planned and premeditated with the intention of insulting the deceased.”

The Court further stated that there is also possibility that petitioner might influence the witnesses using her political power. Relying upon Apex Court decisions, it also stated that there is no proposition that bail must be granted in every case simply because the accused is a lady.

As such, the bail application was dismissed.

“…by considering the entire aspects including the gravity of the offence, the active role played by the accused, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the relief of a pre-arrest bail. The petitioner could not make out a case that this is an exceptional case and that she is entitled for pre-arrest bail.”

Case Name: P P Divya v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl MC No. 1700/2024

Click here to Read/Download Order