Kannur ADM death: Court to pronounce verdict on P.P. Divya’s bail plea on November 8

P.P. Divya (file)
| Photo Credit: S.K. Mohan

The Thalassery Sessions Court in Kannur on Tuesday (November 5, 2024) reserved its judgment on the bail plea of P.P. Divya, former district panchayat president, who faces charges of abetting the suicide of Kannur Additional District Magistrate (ADM) K. Naveen Babu. Following extensive arguments presented by Ms. Divya’s defence team, the prosecution, and Naveen Babu’s family, the court has announced it will deliver its verdict on Friday (November 8, 2024).

During Tuesday’s hearing, Ms. Divya’s lawyer, advocate K. Viswan, argued that the case lacks clear evidence of intent to abet suicide. He contended that Naveen Babu had allegedly accepted a bribe in the presence of government official Prashanth, who had earlier been suspended on disciplinary grounds for bribery.

The defence asserted that there exists circumstantial evidence linking Prashanth’s actions to bribery allegations, suggesting that ADM and Prashanth communicated several times over the phone and later met at a hotel, where CCTV footage purportedly captured their meeting. The defence requested the court to obtain this footage and review phone call records as proof of ADM’s alleged misconduct.

The defence also presented proof that Prashanth took out a gold loan, suggesting it could be linked to bribery payments.

‘Claims speculative’

In response, public prosecutor K. Ajithkumar dismissed the defence’s claims as speculative. They challenged the credibility of phone calls as evidence of bribery, highlighting that Prashanth’s disciplinary charges did not directly implicate Naveen Babu in any corrupt dealings.

It was further emphasised that Naveen Babu, who had joined government service at the age of 19, maintained an unblemished record without previous allegations of bribery or misconduct. The prosecution counsel argued that if the court granted bail to Ms. Divya, it could influence witnesses and hinder the ongoing investigation.

Naveen Babu’s family expressed discontent over the handling of the case, claiming that the police had failed to arrest Ms. Divya immediately and had neglected to record the statement of Naveen babu’s wife, Manjusha, who was represented in court by advocate John S. Rauf.

The family’s legal counsel argued that Ms. Divya had evaded two separate summonses and had delayed cooperation with the investigation.

Potential conspiracy

The family’s counsel also implied a potential conspiracy, urging the court to examine phone records between Ms. Divya and the Kannur District Collector. He claimed that Ms. Divya’s actions in delaying file approvals and allegations of ADM’s bribe acceptance might be part of a larger scheme, warranting deeper scrutiny.

On October 29, the sessions court dismissed Ms. Divya’s anticipatory bail application, resulting in her detention by the investigating team.