Kerala HC Dismisses Dental College Teacher's Anticipatory Bail in BDS Student's Suicide Case, Finds Prima Facie SC/ST Atrocities Offence
Justice A. Badharudeen upheld the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, finding prima facie evidence that repeated public humiliation by the accused teacher drove Scheduled Caste student Nithin Raj to suicide.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, a teacher at Anjarakkandy Dental College, Kannur, who challenged the rejection of his anticipatory bail application in connection with the suicide of first-year BDS student Nithin Raj on 10 April 2026. Justice A. Badharudeen, sitting singly, found that the prosecution materials prima facie disclosed offences under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 and Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. With those offences prima facie made out, the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was held to apply squarely, and the appeal was dismissed with a direction facilitating the arrest and questioning of the accused.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, died by suicide at 13:38 hours on 10 April 2026. Chakkarakkal Police Station, Kannur, registered Crime No. 202/2026 the same evening. Dr. M. Kodanda Ram, the first accused, moved an anticipatory bail application before the Additional Sessions Court – IV, Thalassery, which was dismissed on 25 April 2026. He then filed Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2026 before the High Court.
The prosecution charged the appellant under Section 108 of the BNS (abetment of suicide) and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2018. Section 3(1)(r) penalises intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, by a person who does not belong to either community. Section 3(2)(v) is an enabling provision that enhances the sentence for specified offences committed with knowledge that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The victim's father was impleaded as the fourth respondent. After his original counsel relinquished the vakalath, the Victim Rights Centre under KELSA facilitated the appointment of Adv. Smt. A. Parvathi Menon to represent respondents 3 and 4. The State was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Sri Vipin Narayan A.
The Appellant's Case and the Loan-App Defence
Counsel for the appellant argued that no materials prima facie supported the allegation of instigation under Section 108 of the BNS, and that no insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate within public view was disclosed against the accused. The central alternative explanation offered was that Nithin Raj had availed a loan of Rs. 15,000 from an online lending application called “Insta Pay” at an interest rate of 36 per cent, and that persistent recovery calls from the loan agency — including calls to Professor Latha Sasidharan of the college — were the real cause of the suicide.
In support, the appellant pointed to Crime No. 217/2026 of Chakkarakkal Police Station, registered on 17 April 2026, which booked the Insta Pay representatives for offences under Section 308 of the BNS, Section 13 of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958, and Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2) of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. A separate cyber crime was also registered on 12 April 2026 on a complaint by Professor Latha Sasidharan regarding WhatsApp and MMS messages from Insta Pay representatives demanding repayment.
The appellant also argued that he was a victim of media trial and relied on a 1984 Kerala High Court decision cautioning against media influence on judicial proceedings.
On the legal bar, the appellant relied on a line of decisions holding that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not operate where a prima facie case under the Act is not made out — including Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 6451], Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala [2025 (6) KHC 231], and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [2020 (1) KLT 810 (SC)].
What the Witness Statements Disclosed
Justice Badharudeen examined the statements of four classmates of Nithin Raj recorded during the investigation: B. Faris Rahman, Archa S., Syna, and K.S. Muhammed Nasim. Their accounts were broadly consistent.
All four described an incident on 13 March 2026 in which the appellant questioned Nithin Raj in class about his parents' absence from a Parent-Teacher Association meeting. When Nithin Raj explained that his mother had undergone surgery, the appellant allegedly mocked him publicly and threatened to deduct three marks from his internal assessment as a “surprise gift” for his parents. The appellant then had Nithin Raj's answer paper brought to the classroom and caused it to be read aloud line by line by other students, describing the answers as rubbish.
According to the witness statements, the appellant referred to the students collectively as “dogs” and singled out Nithin Raj as the “worst dog.” He also called Nithin Raj “stupid,” “idiot,” and “fool.” Nithin Raj responded that he did not want to study at the college and left the classroom. He was subsequently taken to the Principal's room by classmates.
The objection filed by respondents 3 and 4 set out additional allegations: that the appellant had repeatedly insinuated that Nithin Raj secured his Government seat solely because of reservation; that he publicly referred to the deceased as “Slum dog” in the classroom on 13 March 2026; and that he had pressured Nithin Raj to vacate the hostel and arrange private accommodation, which was financially impossible for the family. The objection also described an incident in the staff room on the same day where the appellant allegedly threatened Nithin Raj, called him an idiot, and threatened to have him run over by a car.
CCTV footage placed before the Sessions Court showed Nithin Raj entering the Principal's room at approximately 12:39 p.m. on 10 April 2026 and leaving finally at around 1:22 p.m. He died by suicide at 13:38 hours. The footage also showed the appellant entering the staff room at approximately 12:35 p.m. and conversing with faculty members until about 1:28 p.m.
How the Court Reasoned on the SC/ST Bar
Justice Badharudeen accepted the legal propositions advanced by the appellant — that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not bar anticipatory bail where a prima facie case under the Act is not made out. The real question, the court held, was whether the materials on record did disclose such a prima facie case.
On Section 3(1)(r), the court found that the appellant had singled out Nithin Raj in the classroom, called him the “worst dog,” caused his answer paper to be read aloud before peers, and subjected him to sustained public ridicule. These acts were done with the intention of insulting and intimidating Nithin Raj and with a view to humiliate him within public view.
The court then addressed the absence of explicit caste-based remarks in the witness statements. It held that Nithin Raj's Scheduled Caste status was inferable from the fact that he had secured admission under the SC/ST quota, and that the appellant's knowledge of this was discernible from the materials. Invoking Section 8(c) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2018 — which permits a court to presume that an accused with personal knowledge of the victim or his family is aware of the victim's caste identity — the court found nothing on record to rebut that presumption at the investigation stage. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) was therefore prima facie made out.
On Section 108 of the BNS, the court noted that abetment of suicide requires overt acts amounting to instigation, provocation, incitement, or encouragement to commit suicide. It found that the sustained humiliation caused Nithin Raj to declare he would leave the college, and that the events in the Principal's room on 10 April 2026 followed immediately before his death. In those circumstances, the court held it was not safe to conclude prima facie that the appellant was innocent or that his acts did not instigate the suicide.
On the loan-app defence, the court observed that Nithin Raj had borrowed a “very small amount” of Rs. 15,000 for his mother's medical treatment, and that the demand for repayment of such a sum could not, on its own, be treated as the cause of suicide given the pattern of conduct disclosed by the classmates' statements. The court also noted that the Insta Pay crimes were registered after the occurrence and that their investigation was proceeding more rapidly than the investigation in Crime No. 202/2026 itself.
On the media trial argument, Justice Badharudeen rejected it in clear terms. The court stated that no judge would be influenced by media coverage and that freedom of the press is a constitutional right. The court observed that media intervention had, in many instances, helped correct illegalities that administrators had suppressed.
Observations on Medical College Conditions
Justice Badharudeen made extended observations about the treatment of students in medical colleges. The court noted that some teachers use the threat of withholding internal and practical examination marks to intimidate students, and that students suffering such treatment often remain silent out of fear of academic consequences. The court observed that suicides by students unable to withstand such treatment are not uncommon.
The court called for an independent forum, outside the control of colleges, where students can raise grievances. It directed the National Medical Commission, the Health Departments of the Central and State Governments, the Education and Higher Education Departments, and the concerned universities to take appropriate measures to address this situation and consider appointing a commission for the purpose.
The court also noted that house surgeons and postgraduate students are posted on duties throughout day and night, with inadequate time for sleep and meals, describing this as a dangerous situation requiring urgent attention from the relevant authorities.
Outcome
Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2026 was dismissed. Justice Badharudeen agreed with the finding of the Additional Sessions Court – IV, Thalassery, that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2018 applied and that anticipatory bail could not be granted. The dismissal was specifically ordered to facilitate the investigation, including the arrest and questioning of the first accused, without fail, to ensure a fair investigation.
The court expressly clarified that all observations in the judgment were made solely for the purpose of deciding the bail question and would have no binding effect in subsequent proceedings in Crime No. 202/2026.