Kannur ADM death: Sessions court denies anticipatory bail to former district panchayat president P.P. Divya

In her bail plea, P.P. Divya contended that her statements were not intended to harm ADM Naveen Babu

The Thalassery Sessions Court on Tuesday (October 29, 2024) denied anticipatory bail to former Kannur district panchayat president and CPI(M) member P.P. Divya who faces charges of abetting the suicide of former Additional District Magistrate (ADM) Naveen Babu. Ms. Divya had raised allegations of bribery against the ADM, who was found dead the morning after his farewell event in Kannur on October 14.

Judge K.T. Nisar Ahammed pronounced the decision on the anticipatory bail.

Ms. Divya’s comments at the farewell event centred on accusations that Naveen Babu delayed the issuance of a no-objection certificate (NOC) for a petrol pump until a bribe was allegedly paid. This, she argued, was an instance of corruption that demanded accountability.

The remarks, made publicly at the gathering, reportedly created a tense atmosphere, with Ms. Divya alleging that her comments were “necessary to promote administrative efficiency.”

‘Statements made in good faith’

In her bail plea, Ms. Divya contended that her statements were not intended to harm Naveen Babu. She insisted that she was invited to the event by Kannur District Collector Arun K. Vijayan and that her remarks were aligned with her role as a public servant committed to accountability.

According to Ms. Divya, her statements were an effort to highlight the need for integrity within the administration.

The defence team, led by Advocate K. Viswan, argued that Ms. Divya’s comments were intended as “constructive criticism” and were not directed to intimidate or unduly influence the ADM’s mental state. Furthermore, they pointed to previous complaints from individuals named Gangadharan and Prashanth, who had separately raised bribery allegations against Naveen Babu. Ms. Divya’s defence argued that her statements reflected these public grievances rather than any personal vendetta.

Prosecution’s stand

Representing the State, public prosecutor K. Ajith Kumar strongly opposed the bail application, arguing that Ms. Divya’s remarks went beyond mere critique and amounted to a form of public shaming that could have deeply affected Naveen Babu. The prosecution maintained that Ms. Divya’s intention was to defame and pressure the ADM publicly, with her accusations potentially influencing his mental well-being.

Naveen Babu’s family, represented by advocates John S. Ralph and P.M. Sajitha, emphasised the ADM’s dedication to his work, highlighting his contributions despite his posting away from his home district. They argued that Ms. Divya’s statements unfairly targeted him, creating a hostile environment that was exacerbated by her calling in the media to record her speech, which they argued was a deliberate attempt to amplify the situation.

Pressure on police

The court’s decision has now put further pressure on the police to expedite their inquiry, as questions are now being raised about the delay in taking Ms. Divya’s statement and proceeding with her arrest.

Published - October 29, 2024 12:27 pm IST