Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Husband, Releases His Parents

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused bail to the accused husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. However, his parents, who are co-accused in the case, were granted bail.

During today's proceedings, the de facto complainant (Mofiya's father) also brought to the fore that the accused husband was diagnosed with sexual perversion and personality disorders during a counselling session he had attended with the deceased. In her complaint, she had also mentioned her ordeals of having been forced to perform unnatural sexual acts by the accused husband.  

Justice Gopinath P opined that the serious allegations were levelled against the husband and the prosecution had raised apprehension that there is every possibility of influencing witnesses if released on bail.

"It must be stated that the allegations are serious and if proved, would indicate that the deceased had been treated with utmost cruelty by the first petitioner. Since the prosecution has expressed apprehension that the release of petitioners on bail would not be conducive, I am not inclined to grant bail to the first petitioner at present. However, as far as 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned, the allegations are restricted to certain instances of demand for dowry and of making the deceased work like a housemaid and a vague allegation regarding physical assault on one particular day. no particular allegation against 3rd petitioner. Therefore, petitioners 2 and 3 can be granted bail as their continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation with sufficient conditions to not interfere with the investigation or influence any material witnesses." 

The Court added:

"The materials referred to by the learned Additional public prosecutor and the counsel for de-facto complainant would suggest that the deceased had serious complaints against the conduct of the first petitioner, her husband. While it would not be proper to indicate in detail the nature of the allegations raised against the first petitioner , it must be stated that the allegations are serious and those allegations, if proved correct would indicate that the deceased had been treated with utmost cruelty by the first petitioner." 

During the previous hearing, the prosecution had pressed the Court to deny bail to the petitioners to send a strong message to society. While acknowledging that the case had indeed raised much unrest, the Court had observed that it would not be swayed in its judgement by media trials and public opinion.

The accused (petitioners) claimed that the offences under Sections 304B and 306 of IPC would not be attracted against them and that said sections were added to the First Information Report only after the de-facto complainant, Mofiya's father, gave a statement to the police.

They further argued that although the two had entered into marriage through a nikah, the subsequent ceremony of valeema was not conducted and that she had rarely lived at the husband's house. They also alleged that Suhail divorced Mofiya by pronouncing talaq after several rounds of mediation were purportedly held before their Mahallu Jama-ath.

Further, they said that the proximate cause of her suicide may be attributed to the police officer named in the suicide note but not to the accused husband or his parents.

This was vehemently countered on behalf of the de-facto complainant as well as by Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan.

They argued that the events leading up to her suicide made it clear that the accused played a significant role in pushing her to take the most drastic step including by way of meting out continued physical and mental cruelty, demanding dowry and defaming her reputation and character in public. The same was mentioned in the complaint filed by Mofiya before the police, the de-facto complainant pointed out.

The Court noted that the deceased was driven to suicide merely on account of the continuous harassment both mental and physical at the hands of the petitioner. 

A few months after meeting on a social media platform and falling in love, Parveen and the petitioner Suhail got married in April this year and were residing together at the matrimonial house. According to her, her husband and his parents mentally and physically harassed her with demands for more gold and Rs. 40 lakhs as dowry. It is also alleged that they demanded that her parents purchase a property next to the matrimonial residence for the in-laws to reside in.

The prosecution also submitted that the mother-in-law, who is the 2nd petitioner herein, treated Parveen like a maid, making her do domestic chores and threatening to get Suhail married to a doctor. It is contended that she kept pushing the 21-year-old to leave her son Suhail.

Soon, Parveen was served with a talaq notice by her husband. All these led to her taking her life leaving behind a suicide note, the prosecution alleged. The hapless father of the deceased, who is the de facto complainant herein, soon filed a statement before the Police.

However, most of these contentions have been denied by the petitioners. According to them, Parveen had behavioural problems even before the marriage and that the gravity of the same was disclosed to them only after the wedding.

They have also alleged that she used to intimidate the petitioner with suicide threats every time she needed him to accede to her needs and that it was the mental trauma from such behaviour that separated him mentally from the deceased.

The application filed through Advocate Abhilash K.N. alleged that the initial FIR was registered under Section 174 CrPC but was later altered to incorporate Sections 498A, 304B and 306 r/w 34 IPC.

The petitioners contend that this alteration was a consequence of the de facto complainant's statement. It was further argued that the said offences would not be attracted against them as per the decision in Harikrishnan & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr [2019 (3) KHC 437]. In the said case, it was decided that the proximity of time between the alleged act of abetment by the accused and the act of the victim is absolutely necessary.

On this ground, it was mentioned that there was no proximate cause of the incident on the part of the petitioners and that they had not raised any demand immediately prior to the incident and that they were separated 4 months before the incident.

The application further stated that the petitioner had divorced the deceased on 27th October after several rounds of mediation. It also pointed out that Parveen had allegedly slapped the petitioner for no apparent reason in front of a police officer. It may be noted that the Sessions Court had refused to grant bail to the petitioners herein last year.

Case Title: Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

Click Here To Read/Download The Order