The Kozhikode Sessions Court on Wednesday granted bail to social media content creator Shimjitha Musthafa in a case concerning the alleged abetment of suicide of 42-year-old U Deepak.
Police arrested Musthafa after Deepak died by suicide, days after she uploaded a video accusing him of misconduct during a bus journey.
District and Sessions Judge Bindhukumari VS passed the order in Shimjitha VK v State of Kerala.
Allegations and Background
The case relates to a bus journey on January 16. According to the prosecution, the bus was crowded and Deepak stood at the front. The prosecution alleges that Musthafa deliberately stood close to him. She later posted a video from the bus and accused Deepak of touching her inappropriately.
The video went viral and received over two million views on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook. The circulation of the video triggered widespread online criticism and public shaming of Deepak.
On January 18, Deepak was found dead at his residence. Investigators allege that the humiliation and online harassment following the video led him to take his life.
After his death, several people criticised Musthafa and questioned her allegations. Many claimed that the video did not show any misbehaviour by Deepak. Deepak’s mother then filed a complaint, alleging that Musthafa made false accusations to gain popularity and social media attention.
Charges and Arrest
Based on the complaint, police registered a case against Musthafa under:
- Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide)
- Section 352 of the BNS (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace)
- Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (nuisance and violation of public order)
Police arrested her on January 21 and remanded her to judicial custody.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam, rejected her earlier bail plea. She then approached the sessions court.
Court’s Findings on Bail
The State opposed the bail application and argued that Musthafa did not cooperate during custodial interrogation.
However, the sessions court noted that it had already granted police custody for one day on February 5. The prosecution did not file any further application seeking additional custody. The court also observed that the reports before it did not specifically record any non-cooperation.
The court found that the investigation had progressed considerably. Investigators had recorded statements of material witnesses. They had also seized Musthafa’s mobile phone and sent it for forensic examination.
In its order, the court stated:
“Since the investigation has thus progressed to a considerable extent and further detention of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, I find that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.”
The court held that authorities cannot keep an accused in judicial custody indefinitely while waiting for a forensic report.
Bail Conditions
The court granted bail subject to strict conditions. It directed Musthafa to appear before the investigating officer on the second and fourth Friday of every month between 10 AM and 11 AM. The court also warned her not to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation.
Advocates PV Hari and Sushama M appeared for Musthafa.
