Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Accused Husband

The Kerala High Court on Monday granted bail to Suhail, the husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment.

Justice Gopinath P. was inclined to grant bail with conditions since according to him, continued detention may not be necessary considering that he had already spent more than 65 days in jail and because the final report had been filed in the matter.

"I am of the opinion that since the accused has been in custody for 65 days, he can be released on bail, subject to conditions." 

The Court had earlier released Suhail's parents, who are co-accused in the case, on bail citing that the allegations raised against them were not grave enough to call for continued detention. 

However, noting that there were severe allegations against Suhail, the Judge had refused to grant him bail. 

During an earlier 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 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 v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Click Here To Read/Download The Order