Bail Application No. 5731 of 2016 (Muhasin and others v. State of Kerala)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID** **THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20TH SRAVANA, 1938** **Bail Appl..No. 5731 of 2016 () ------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1498/2016 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED CRIME NO. 1022/2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE** **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 6: ---------------------------------** ## **1. MUHASIN** **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, MEETHALE PULIYANANDIYIL HOUSE, THANAKKOTTUR, VATAKARA TALUK.** **2. ABRAR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, PERINHADI VAYALIL HOUSE, CUSTOMS ROAD, VATAKARA.** **3. AJNAS, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. KUNHABULLA, EKKOTH HOUSE, KUNINGAD, VATAKARA TALUK.** **4. ARSHIDA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O HARIS, MALAYIL HOUSE, PONMEN PARAMBIL, AAROORA MALA, VATAKARA TALUK.** **5. SEMEEHA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. MOOSA, NADUKUYYIL HOUSE, VALLIYAD, VATAKARA TALUK.** **6. SUMAYYA, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. HAMEED, POTTAL HOUSE, KARIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE** **Bail Appl..No. 5731 of 2016 ()** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:** **---------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA** **REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031. (CRIME NO. 1022/2016 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **ds** ## **P.UBAID, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5731 of 2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2016 ## **ORDER** The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No. 1022 of 2016 of the Vadakara Police Station, initially registered under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, the Police altered the Section, and investigation proceeded under Section 306 of IPC, and also under Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The petitioners have been in custody since 26.7.2016. Their application for bail was dismissed by the Court of Session on 1.8.2016. 2. This crime relates to the commission of suicide by one Hashnas, who was a student of the second year B.Sc., Microbiology, in the MHED College, Cherandathoor. The petitioners herein are the senior students of the third year B.Sc., Computer Science. Hashnas committed suicide at about 6.00 p.m. on 22.7.2016 at her **-2-** ## **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** own house. On the accusation of misbehaviour towards some senior students, deceased Hashnas was threatened and compelled by some senior students, including these petitioners, to apologize. It is alleged that some teachers also joined the senior students to compel the deceased to tender apology to the seniors. It is alleged that this incident tensed, panicked, and humiliated Hashnas very much, and due to the humiliation caused by such harassment, Hashnas hanged herself to death on the same day at 6.00 p.m.. Initially, there was no doubt or complaint. But, later came some complaint from some corners, that Hashnas had been harassed by the seniors, and she committed suicide due to the mental and physical harassment caused by the seniors. Accordingly, investigation proceeded against these petitioners and some others, including some teachers. 3. The material question for decision is whether _prima facie_ materials are there for a prosecution under Section 306 of IPC, or whether, on the given allegations, or **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** **-3-** the materials so far collected, a prosecution is possible against the petitioners under Section 306 of IPC. 4. That the deceased Hashnaas was compelled or coerced to apologize to the seniors, is a fact revealed by the prosecution records. But the question is whether such harassment will amount to abetment of suicide. As regards the essential requirement for a prosecution under Section 306 of IPC, this Court has recently settled the position, on the basis of the earlier decisions, in Faisal Abdurahman v. State of Kerala (2016 Crl.L.J. 3008). For such a prosecution, there must be definite nexus between the alleged acts of the accused, and the commission of suicide by the victim. In short, commission of suicide by the victim must be the proximate result of the alleged acts on the part of the accused. Here the question is whether the act of the petitioners and others in compelling the victim to apologize to the seniors, would make her commit suicide, or make her think of putting an end to her life. ## **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** **-4-** 5. To constitute abetment, the alleged acts on the part of the accused must have the definite effect or impact of driving an ordinary person put in ordinary circumstances, to the commission of the suicide. In this case, such things are doubtful. It appears that Hashnas had her own reasons to commit suicide, or she thought of putting an end to her life due to the humiliation and panic, or due to the worries that her classmates and other students may tease or humiliate her at the College. That factor cannot have any link in between the alleged act of ragging, and the commission of suicide by the victim. Anyway, things are yet to be decided during trial, whether such acts of the accused alleged by the prosecution will ordinarily have the effect of leading or driving the victim to the commission of suicide, or whether Hashnas committed suicide due to such acts of the accused, or due to her own reasons otherwise. Let such things to be effectively and thoroughly probed into. In the present circumstances where such definite materials are **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** **-5-** lacking, and where the Investigating Officer has questioned all the material witnesses for the collection of materials concerning the alleged mental or physical harassment, I feel it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail. 6. The main witnesses to prove the alleged incident are the other students of the College, including one Muhammed Fazil who has already been questioned by the Investigating Officer. Whether Muhamad Fazil would cross over to the other side cannot be the concern now. The court's concern must be whether any attempt would be made by the petitioners to influence or win over the material witnesses. Such possibilities can be averted by imposing appropriate conditions. Of course, very onerous conditions like prohibiting entry to the Campus cannot be imposed, because the petitioners will have to pursue their studies. Still some reasonable conditions will have to be imposed in the interest of fair investigation and smooth trial. It is not known what exactly was the role of the other persons ## **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** **-6-** implicated as the accused Nos. 4 to 10. Some are teachers. The Investigating Officer will have to think wisely whether a prosecution in the given circumstances, or on the given allegations is possible against the teachers. In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioners will be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that; a. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of two months. b. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Vadakara Police Station for two months. **B.A.No. 5731 of 2016** **-7-** c. The petitioners shall not make any attempt to influence any of the material witnesses, and they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses, including Hashnas' Classmate Muhammed Fazil directly or over telephone or otherwise till the trial of the case is over. d. The petitioners shall not involve in any case under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, till completion of their course in the College. Sd/- **P.UBAID** **JUDGE** ds //True copy// P.A. to Judge