The Thalassery Principal Sessions Court will pronounce its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea of P P Divya, the former Kannur district panchayat president charged with abetment of suicide in connection with the death of ADM Naveen Babu, on October 29.

Principal Sessions Judge K T Nisar Ahmed heard the arguments in the case on Thursday. The prosecution opposed the anticipatory bail plea, claiming that P P Divya had personally attacked ADM Naveen Babu. The prosecution informed the court that such a thing was done with proper planning. The prosecution contended that Divya’s actions amounted to character assassination, emphasising that her threats and premeditated media involvement contributed to the ADM’s distress. The prosecution argued that as the second-highest-ranking official in the district, Naveen Babu’s character was publicly maligned, leading to his suicide. The prosecution also pointed out that the District Collector stated that Divya had not been invited to the farewell meeting and that her speech contained threatening undertones.

Advertisement

The prosecution highlighted that Divya had no legitimate reason to attend the staff council programme and said she had previously complained about the ADM to the Collector, who said in his statement about asking Divya to avoid public statements on the same. The prosecution asserted that public character assassination sends a detrimental message to society and called for Divya’s custody for further interrogation, stating that her lack of cooperation is concerning given her position of responsibility. “Divya was holding a responsible position. If people like her start crucifying officials, what will be the state of the society,” the prosecution asked.

The counsel for late ADM Naveen Babu’s family’s emphasised that Divya’s actions inflicted significant hardship on the ADM, arguing that the dispute was not merely a matter of personal ego. The counsel also raised concerns about Divya’s financial interests, alleging that the petrol pump deal involved benami transactions. He highlighted discrepancies in complaints filed against Naveen Babu, asserting that Divya’s behaviour was orchestrated to humiliate him publicly.

“Petrol pump permits do not fall under the purview of the district panchayat president. Divya’s resentment stemmed from the fact that the permit was not granted illegally. The district panchayat president got up and left during the memento-awarding ceremony with the intention of insulting. There is no evidence that the ADM took a bribe and that’s why he was humiliated in public. The video of the humiliation went viral, including in Pathanamthitta. The aim was to humiliate him wherever he went. Naveen’s decency prevented him from responding to Divya at that venue,” the lawyer argued.

The counsel for the family further argued that Divya’s conduct constituted a serious crime and underscored the emotional toll on Naveen Babu’s daughter, who had to perform her father’s last rites, urging the court to consider her suffering over Divya’s familial circumstances.

Naveen Babu’s family’s lawyer also argued that Prashanthan prepared the complaint to the Chief Minister after Naveen Babu’s death. He also raised the discrepancy in Prashant’s signature in the complaint and NOC files. The discrepancy in the signature is proof that the complaint was fabricated, the counsel submitted.

Divya’s counsel argued that she is a public figure with numerous responsibilities and had resigned following the emergence of the allegations. Her lawyer claimed that the accusations against her were largely fabricated and that her public statements were a stand against corruption. Divya expressed disbelief at the allegations and pointed out that she had been informally invited by the Collector to the farewell meeting. The lawyer also told the court that ADM Naveen Babu had interfered in matters outside his purview. It is the need of the society that officials should not become corrupt, he said.

Divya’s counsel asked why Naveen Babu did not object during her speech if he believed her claims were unfounded. He maintained that Divya had merely wished the ADM well and advised him to improve, asserting that such statements could not be linked to his subsequent suicide. He further argued that she did not attempt to humiliate Naveen Babu in public but was merely trying to expose a corruption deal.

Meanwhile, PP Divya, the accused in the suicide case of Kannur ADM Naveen Babu, faces more trouble as a report indicates she circulated the video criticising Naveen Babu. This information comes from the Land Revenue Joint Commissioner’s report, which reveals that Divya obtained the farewell video footage from a local news channel and shared it with various media outlets.

The Land Revenue Joint Commissioner has not found any evidence or testimonies supporting allegations that Naveen Babu deliberately delayed the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a petrol pump in Chengalayi, Kannur. Reports suggest there is no evidence of Babu accepting bribes. Following a police report regarding a road curve, the ADM requested an assessment from the Town Planning Department, which approved the proposal based on future road widening plans. Testimonies indicate that Babu acted within legal parameters.

PP Divya, who initially raised the bribery allegations, has not yet provided a statement regarding the matter.

Meanwhile, criticisms are emerging against the police for their perceived soft-pedalling of the case against Divya. Although the police booked Divya under charges of abetment of suicide in connection with ADM Naveen Babu’s death, they have not issued a notice to her or recorded her statement.