ADM’s death: Divya remanded in judicial custody for 14 days

She was arrested earlier in the day after Thalassery Sessions Court denied her anticipatory bail. Former Kannur district panchayat president will be housed in the women’s section of Kannur Central Jail

Updated - October 30, 2024 09:53 am IST - KANNUR

Former Kannur district panchayat president P.P. Divya  coming out of the Crime Branch office in Kannur after her arrest was recorded on Tuesday.  

Former Kannur district panchayat president P.P. Divya  coming out of the Crime Branch office in Kannur after her arrest was recorded on Tuesday.   | Photo Credit: MOHAN SK

Former Kannur district panchayat president and Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader P.P. Divya was remanded in judicial custody for 14 days by the Taliparamba Judicial First Class Magistrate Court on Tuesday.

She was arrested earlier in the day after she evaded authorities for 13 days amid allegations of abetting the suicide of Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu. Ms. Divya will be housed in the women’s section of the Kannur Central Jail.

She was produced before Magistrate M.V. Anuraj at his residence in the evening after her arrest was formally recorded at the Crime Branch office. The arrest came after the Thalassery Sessions Court denied her anticipatory bail.

Following her arrest, Ms. Divya was escorted under heavy police protection to the District Hospital for medical examination. A strong police force secured the area amid rising tension. During her transit, she faced a black flag protest by Youth Congress workers, leading to a brief confrontation with the police.

Naveen was found dead on October 15, shortly after a farewell speech delivered by Ms. Divya at the Collectorate. Prosecutors alleged that her comments during the speech inflicted emotional distress on him, contributing to his decision to take his own life.

In the sessions court’s ruling, Judge K.T. Nisar Ahammed noted that her argument that she attended the farewell meeting only after being invited was insufficient to absolve her of responsibility.

According to the court, the prosecution argued that Ms. Divya humiliated Naveen publicly, allegedly leading to his suicide hours later. She reportedly argued her speech was intended to address corruption. However, the court refuted this, stating that the speech appeared orchestrated to cause embarrassment, noting Ms. Divya had arranged for the event to be filmed and circulated the video, including in Naveen’s hometown Pathanamthitta.

The Judge, in the order, cited that Ms Divya had no evidence for allegations of corruption against Naveen. He noted that while she claimed she had spoken out against corruption, there was no documented proof, and her actions lacked substantiation, relying only on hearsay.

The court asked if she was a crusader against corruption, she should have immediately taken action against T.V. Prashanth, who raised corruption charges against the ADM, for bribing a high-ranking officer of the government.

The court’s order also referred to the District Collector’s statement, which added critical context. The Collector revealed that Ms. Divya had initially raised allegations of delays in the ADM’s section regarding no-objection certificate for a petrol pump. Despite her claims, the Collector advised against any immediate action due to insufficient evidence, warning that acting on unverified complaints could be unprofessional and premature.

However, later that afternoon, Ms. Divya insisted on visiting the Collectorate. Despite the Collector’s dissuasion, noting it would be inappropriate given the ADM’s imminent transfer, she proceeded, leading to the fateful farewell speech.

The court recorded the Collector’s account of Naveen’s actions following the farewell speech, in which he reportedly expressed regret over a “mistake”. The court clarified that this statement did not imply an admission of bribery or corruption but reflected the ADM’s evident distress after the speech.

The Judge highlighted a Supreme Court judgment, Sumita Pradeep v. Arun Kumar, noting that custodial interrogation was one among many considerations for bail decisions. The court expressed concern that Ms. Divya’s political influence could impact witness testimonies if released, underscoring the necessity of her continued custody.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.