[Law Student Suicide] Kerala High Court declines bail to accused husband; grants bail to parents of accused

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant bail to the accused husband of Mofiya Parveen, a young law student who recently took her life. The Court, however, granted bail to his parents who are co-accused in the case. [Mohammed Suhail & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.]..Justice Gopinath P declined to grant bail to the husband who is the first petitioner in the case as he opined that the allegations made out against the husband are grave and the prosecution had raised apprehension that there is every chance of influencing witnesses if he is released on bail."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," the Court said in its order. .However, as far as the two other petitioners are concerned , the mother and father of the accused husband, the Court noted that the allegations are principally against the mother and that these allegations are restricted to certain instances of demands of dowry and allegations of instances of making the deceased work as a housemaid and physical cruelty on one instance. "Therefore I am of the view that petitioners and three can be granted bail as their continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of investigation. Sufficient conditions can be imposed to ensure that they do not interfere in the investigation of influence any material witnesses," the Court said..On November 23, 2021, Parveen, a 2nd year LLB student, took her own life and left behind a suicide note allegedly blaming abuse and dowry harassment at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She had also named a police officer in the note for his alleged inaction on her complaints.Subsequently, the accused husband and parents were booked for offences punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 304B (dowry death) and 306 (abetment of suicide) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..During the previous hearing, the prosecution had pressed the Court to expeditiously deny bail to send a strong message to the society to which the Court had taken strong exception. The Court accepted that the case had indeed raised much furore but that it would not be swayed in its judgement by media trials and public opinion. The Court asserted that it would adhere to the directions in the judgement of the Supreme Court, authored by Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundaresh in which it was held if a person is accused in a non-bailable offence and his custody was not required during the period of investigation, then it is appropriate that such an accused be released on bail..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 Dilshad, gave a statement to the police.The petitioners claimed that even though 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 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 (Mofiya's father) 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. .21-year-old Mofiya Parveen Dilshad hailed from Aluva, Kerala and was pursuing an LLB course at the time of her death.Before ending her life on the night of November 23, the young law student wrote a note allegedly accusing her husband Mohammed Suhail, his parents Yusuf and Rukhia, and also the Circle Inspector of the Aluva police station.Mofiya had met her husband, Mohammed Suhail, on Facebook and Suhail had supposedly said that he had a job in the UAE, and that he was a vlogger. Soon after the wedding, Suhail allegedly demanded large sums of money from Mofiya and when such demands went unmet, he purportedly turned abusive.She had previously approached the police with complaints in this regard but they were apparently disregarded with one police officer, who she named in the suicide note, summoning both families and reprimanding her.The same night, Mofiya was found hanging in her room.Soon after the incident, the police officer named in the suicide note was removed from the post of Aluva East Station House Officer by the District Police Chief.Interestingly, he had actually been transferred to Aluva by way of punishment for his alleged mishandling of the Uthra murder case, in which the woman’s husband was recently convicted for murder by inducing a cobra bite.