Dental Teacher Accused of Publicly Humiliating SC Student before Suicide, Denied Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Dental Teacher Accused of Humiliating SC Student Before Suicide
Facts
The appellant, Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, was the first accused in a criminal case registered after the suicide of Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student at a dental college in Kannur.
The student died by suicide on 10 April 2026.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant, who was a teacher at the institution, repeatedly insulted, intimidated and mentally harassed the student. It was alleged that the second accused supported the appellant’s conduct.
Nithin Raj belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. The prosecution invoked:
- Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, relating to abetment of suicide;
- Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, relating to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe within public view; and
- Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
The Special Court rejected the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. He challenged that order before the Kerala High Court.
The prosecution and the victim’s family relied on statements of classmates alleging that the appellant had publicly ridiculed the student, called him words such as “dog”, “idiot”, “fool” and “stupid”, and caused his answer paper to be read aloud before the class for the purpose of humiliating him.
It was further alleged that the student was singled out as the “worst dog” in the class and was repeatedly subjected to insulting treatment.
The appellant relied on separate criminal cases concerning harassment by an online loan application from which the student had borrowed ₹15,000. He argued that pressure from the loan recovery agents, rather than any conduct by him, could have caused the suicide.
Issues
- Whether the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie offence of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.
- Whether the allegations prima facie attracted Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
- Whether an express caste-related insult was necessary to attract Section 3(1)(r).
- Whether the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act prevented the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the student’s alleged harassment by an online loan application displaced the prosecution case against the teacher.
- Whether the Special Court had erred in rejecting anticipatory bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that there was no material showing that he had instigated, provoked or encouraged Nithin Raj to commit suicide.
He submitted that mere criticism, disciplinary action or harsh words by a teacher could not automatically amount to abetment of suicide.
According to him, Section 108 of the BNS required a clear act of instigation accompanied by the intention to push the victim towards suicide.
The appellant further argued that no witness had attributed any express caste-related statement to him.
He contended that ordinary insult or intimidation was insufficient to attract Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution had to establish that the alleged humiliation was connected to the victim’s caste identity.
He relied on precedents holding that the bar against anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act would not apply where the complaint failed to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under the Act.
The appellant also relied on the criminal cases registered against persons associated with the “Insta Pay” loan application.
He argued that the student had borrowed ₹15,000 at a high rate of interest and had been subjected to persistent recovery calls. According to him, this was a more probable reason for the suicide.
The appellant also complained that he had been subjected to a media trial and urged the Court not to be influenced by public reporting.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State and the victim’s parents opposed anticipatory bail.
They argued that the student had entered the dental college with significant academic ambition but was repeatedly targeted, isolated and humiliated by the appellant.
The victim’s family alleged that the appellant mocked students based on their physical appearance, social background and community identity.
They claimed that the appellant had repeatedly made remarks suggesting that the deceased had secured admission only because of reservation and could not otherwise have entered the course.
The family further alleged that the teacher had publicly described the student as a “slum dog”, ridiculed his academic performance and made insensitive remarks about his mother’s surgery.
They relied on statements of classmates who described the appellant’s conduct in the classroom.
The respondents argued that the humiliation was public, deliberate and sustained. It allegedly caused the student to state that he no longer wished to continue studying in the college.
They also relied on the sequence of events immediately preceding the suicide, including the student’s presence in the Principal’s room and the appellant’s movements recorded in CCTV footage.
The respondents contended that the loan of ₹15,000 was taken for the medical treatment of the student’s mother and was not, by itself, sufficient to explain the suicide.
They argued that the loan-app theory was being used to divert attention from the alleged classroom humiliation and harassment.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the legal requirements for abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS, which corresponds to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
To establish abetment of suicide, the prosecution must ordinarily show an act of instigation, provocation, incitement or intentional encouragement that has a proximate connection with the suicide.
At the anticipatory bail stage, however, the Court is not required to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
It must consider whether the available material prima facie discloses the offence alleged.
The Court also examined Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
The provision applies where a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates a member of such a community with the intention of humiliating that person in a place within public view.
The Court noted that the insult must be intentional and must be directed towards humiliating a person belonging to the protected community.
Under Section 8(c) of the SC/ST Act, where the accused has personal knowledge of the victim or the victim’s family, the Court may presume knowledge of the victim’s caste identity unless the contrary is proved.
The Court held that where a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is disclosed, Section 18 bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
Conversely, where the basic ingredients of the offence are absent, the statutory bar does not apply.
Precedent Analysis
The appellant relied on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that the bar on anticipatory bail does not apply if the complaint fails to disclose a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act.
He also relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, which clarified that ordinary insult is not automatically punishable under Section 3(1)(r). The insult must amount to humiliation of the kind contemplated by the statute.
The appellant cited Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala, Rajachandrasekharan v. State of Kerala and other authorities concerning Section 3(2)(v), the requirement of a substantive scheduled offence and the limited application of the anticipatory-bail bar.
Several decisions on abetment of suicide were also cited to argue that mere harassment, criticism or disciplinary conduct is insufficient without direct or proximate instigation.
The High Court accepted the general legal principles in those cases.
However, it held that their application depended on the facts and the material collected in each case.
The Court found that the witness statements in the present matter went beyond isolated criticism or ordinary classroom discipline.
They disclosed an alleged pattern of public ridicule, singling out, verbal abuse and humiliation immediately connected with the student’s distress.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court placed considerable reliance on the statements of the deceased student’s classmates.
Multiple students gave broadly consistent accounts that the appellant regularly used insulting language against students and had specifically targeted Nithin Raj.
They alleged that the appellant caused the student’s answer paper to be read aloud line by line before the class and described the answers as rubbish.
The appellant was alleged to have called the student a “dog”, “idiot”, “fool”, “stupid” and the “worst dog” in the class.
The Court found that these acts were allegedly committed in the presence of other students and were therefore within public view.
Although the classmates did not state that the appellant used the victim’s caste name during the incident, the Court held that knowledge of the student’s Scheduled Caste status could prima facie be inferred.
The student had obtained admission under the SC/ST quota, and the appellant was personally acquainted with him as his teacher.
Section 8(c) therefore permitted a presumption of knowledge of the victim’s caste identity, unless rebutted.
The Court held that an express reference to the caste name was not necessarily required at the anticipatory bail stage where the alleged humiliation was intentional, public and directed at a person whose caste identity was known to the accused.
The Court also considered the allegation of abetment of suicide.
It noted that the student had expressed an intention to leave the college after the alleged classroom humiliation and had later been taken to the Principal’s room. He died by suicide shortly thereafter.
Given the proximity of the events and the statements concerning sustained humiliation, the Court held that it was unsafe at that stage to conclude that the appellant had no role in provoking or instigating the suicide.
The Court rejected the argument that the loan-app harassment conclusively explained the death.
It observed that the existence of another possible source of distress did not erase the alleged conduct of the appellant.
The loan-related cases had also been registered after the suicide and remained under investigation.
The Court strongly criticised abusive and humiliating conduct by teachers towards medical students.
It observed that fear relating to internal marks, examinations and professional careers could leave students unable to complain against faculty members.
The Court called for an independent grievance-redressal forum outside the control of colleges so that medical students could raise complaints without fear.
On the allegation of media trial, the Court held that judges decide cases on the basis of the record and evidence, not media reporting. It also recognised the media’s important constitutional role while acknowledging that no institution is entirely free from shortcomings.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Special Court’s refusal to grant anticipatory bail.
It held that the materials collected during the investigation prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
Consequently, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act applied.
The Court also found sufficient prima facie material to continue investigating the allegation of abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the BNS.
The dismissal of the appeal enabled the investigating agency to arrest and question the appellant for the purpose of conducting an effective and fair investigation.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the anticipatory bail plea and would not bind the trial court or affect the merits of subsequent proceedings.
Case Details
Case: Dr. M. Kodanda Ram v. State of Kerala & Others
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2026
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Date: 19 June 2026
Result: Anticipatory bail appeal dismissed; investigation, arrest and questioning permitted
