Kochi | The Kerala High Court on Wednesday expressed doubt if top police officials were involved in protecting an accused after he was ordered to be released by a lower court for not furnishing the grounds of arrest.
The High Court directed the investigating officer (IO), who arrested the accused, to appear in person on July 24.
It also directed the IO to come with legible copies of all the documents which he had produced in the lower court while producing the accused -- M K Ram -- after his arrest.
The officer was also directed to file an affidavit regarding the compliance of the pre-arrest formalities in this case.
"Similarly, the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, who supervised the investigation, is also directed to appear in person at 10.45 am on July 24, 2026 to submit his response in this serious matter," Justice A Badharudeen said.
Dr Ram is the prime accused in the case of alleged suicide by a student of a Kannur-based private dental college where he is the head of the department.
The victim, Nithin Raj, a student of the college at Anjarakandy, was found dead on April 10 after falling from a building on the college campus in a suspected case of suicide.
According to the investigation, Raj, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, was insulted and intimidated by Ram in the classroom.
The accused was taken into custody from Karnataka, where he was hiding after his anticipatory bail pleas in the case were rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and his arrest was recorded on Monday.
However, a special court under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ordered his release on the same day, claiming that the grounds of arrest were not furnished.
Referring to the development, the High Court on Wednesday said, "This court strongly doubts the involvement of top police officials to save the accused from detention, prima facie..."
"... Since it is very difficult to believe that the Investigating Officer, holding the post of DySP, would not be aware of the fact that grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused when producing the accused before a court after his arrest."
The High Court said that the doubt is further strengthened by the fact that the government has changed the investigating team and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
The government told the court that the matter will be enquired into.
The High Court further said that it does not know what transpired before the special court and what documents were produced before it as the victim's family was not heard before the release of the accused.
"Therefore, the Special Judge is directed to forward all the documents produced by the IO at the time of production of the accused, along with a copy of the order passed by the Special Judge," it said.
