BDS student Nithin Raj’s death: HC raps Crime Branch, asks if investigating officer helped accused walk free

Kochi: Expressing severe displeasure over procedural blunders that briefly allowed Dr M K Ram, the prime accused in the death of BDS student R L Nithin Raj, to walk free, the Kerala High Court on Friday sharply reprimanded senior Crime Branch officers, suggesting the lapses may have been deliberate to benefit the accused. Warning that it would not hesitate to order an independent probe if the state failed to act, the court questioned whether mandatory arrest procedures were intentionally flouted to create a legal escape route for Dr Ram.

Hearing the matter, Justice A Badharudeen subjected the Crime Branch investigation to intense scrutiny over the procedural lapses that led to Dr Ram’s release by the Thalassery Principal Sessions Court despite his anticipatory bail having already been rejected by the Sessions Court, the Kerala High Court and the Supreme Court.

Criticising the Investigating Officer DySP Sudheer Kallan in an open court, Justice Badharudeen warned that if the state failed to initiate strict disciplinary action against the officers responsible, it would order an exhaustive investigation to identify those behind what it suggested could be a deliberate attempt to sabotage the case.

The case relates to the death of Nithin Raj, a first-year BDS student at Kannur Dental College, Anjarakandy, who died in April 2026 after falling from a campus building. His family alleged that he was driven to suicide following continuous caste-based harassment and public humiliation by Dr Ram, then Head of the Department. Based on the allegations, the Crime Branch charged Dr Ram with abetment to suicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The HC’s observations on Friday came amid the controversy surrounding Dr Ram’s arrest. After remaining absconding for months despite repeated rejection of his anticipatory bail even by the Supreme Court, he was arrested in Kodagu on July 19. However, the Thalassery Principal Sessions Court ordered his release after finding that the Crime Branch had failed to furnish the mandatory written grounds of arrest. Nithin Raj’s family alleged police collusion, prompting the Home Department to reconstitute the SIT. Following permission for a lawful re-arrest, Dr Ram surrendered, was questioned, remanded to judicial custody.

Court questions whether lapse was deliberate
Justice Badharudeen rejected the explanation that failure to furnish written grounds of arrest to Dr Ram was an inadvertent error. The judge pointed out that the officer, who has more than 22 years of service, had correctly complied with statutory arrest procedures in nine other arrests over the past year.

Observing that none of those accused had been released on procedural grounds, the court questioned why only Dr Ram’s arrest suffered such a fundamental defect. “You say, ‘this won’t be repeated’. Out of the nine people arrested, not even one was released for lack of grounds of arrest. Releasing only this person – shouldn’t it be understood that you did it intentionally?” Justice Badharudeen asked.

The court further observed that the officer knew the law well enough to comply with it in every other case and suggested that the omission in this instance appeared intentional, as though it had been done with the expectation that the accused would walk free.

Justice Badharudeen also questioned whether the lapse had been committed to embarrass the Home Department at a time when the state police were implementing initiatives such as Operation Toofan.

“Do you have any enmity towards the Home Department? Was this done with the intention of tarnishing the image at a time when good things like Operation Toofan are being carried out? What the DySP did is a serious mistake. Action needs to be taken,” the judge observed.

The High Court also criticised the supervising officer, Crime Branch SP, questioning what ‘supervision’ meant if senior officers failed to ensure compliance with mandatory legal procedures before producing an accused before court.

The court also rejected the officers’ justification that they had proceeded with the arrest because higher courts had already rejected Dr Ram’s anticipatory bail.

Reminding the officers that rejection of anticipatory bail does not exempt police from complying with constitutional safeguards under Article 22 or the Supreme Court’s mandatory arrest guidelines, Justice Badharudeen said the very purpose of custodial interrogation would be defeated if the prescribed legal procedure itself was ignored.

“The Supreme Court rejected anticipatory bail because custodial interrogation was necessary. But you are bound to obey the law in accordance with the prescribed procedure... Once you fail in exercising your duty, that is, in fact, very serious,” the court observed.

“Courts exist for common people”
Expressing concern that investigators appeared to be taking sides rather than acting impartially, the judge observed that police officers could not save an accused through procedural shortcuts because the final decision rested with the courts, and stressed that investigators must discharge their duties honestly instead of sidelining the grievances of victims.

In one of the strongest observations during the hearing, the court remarked that the judiciary remained the last safeguard for ordinary citizens when law enforcement failed.

“There is a court here to look into the matters of common people. Court and justice have not become extinct here... The situation is so pathetic! In serious crimes, police are failing in doing their duty, and the courts shall step in to ensure their arrest. That is not a fair way of dealing with things,” Justice Badharudeen said.

Directing the state government and the ADGP (Crimes) to submit a report within two weeks detailing the disciplinary action initiated against the officers responsible, Justice Badharudeen warned that the court would not allow the issue to be brushed aside through internal proceedings.

“If you fail to fulfil the assurance given that strict action will be taken against those responsible, the court will intervene. If action is not taken as assured, I shall step in to order an exhaustive investigation to find out who the persons behind it are,” the judge said before adjourning the case for two weeks.