Kerala HC grants Dileep, 5 others anticipatory bail in conspiracy case

Dileep

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court granted actor Dileep, his brother and four others anticipatory bail in a conspiracy case on Monday.

The case is over the alleged bid to endanger the lives of police officers who investigated the 2017 case pertaining to the sexual assault of an actress.

The court granted the bail on the grounds that Dileep has so far cooperated in the probe.

The court ordered Dileep to surrender his passport and furnish two sureties of Rs 1 lakh each.

The court warned that the actor will be arrested if he violated these conditions.

Dileep's brother Anoop, brother-in-law Suraj, cousin Appu and two friends Baiju Chengamanadu and Sarath are the other accused in the case.

They too have been granted the pre-arrest bail.

The Crime Branch personnel who had stationed themselves near Dileep's residence on Monday morning expecting a favourable verdict for the prosecution returned soon after it was pronounced by Justice P Gopinath.

It was prosecution's complaint for long that Dileep and the other accused were not cooperating with the case.

The accused, including Dileep, had applied for anticipatory bail in October following the disclosures of the actor's former friend and director Balachandrakumar, leading to the registration of the new case.

According to Balachandrakumar, Dileep and his accomplices conspired to endanger Crime Branch officers Baiju Poulouse and   KS Sudarshan,  both Deputy Superintendents of Police (DySP), who were part of the team that arrested Dileep in the 2017 case.

Balachandrakumar also handed over the audio recording of the conversations to the investigating officers.

The court had stayed arrest then and directed Dileep and others to appear for questioning for three days.

The prosecution was also directed to provide the court with the details of the case.

Dileep, in his defense, had raised severe allegations against the police.

He told the high court that he has been booked in the conspiracy case as part of the police's attempts to fabricate evidence against him.

He said the allegation that he had a close relationship with Sunilkumar (Pulsar Suni), the prime accused in the sexual assault case, was totally false.

Dileep said the Crime Branch's FIR contained several allegations that were not in the statement of Balachandrakumar.

Dileep asked how he could expect justice when the petitioner in the conspiracy case is DySP Baiju Poulose, the police officer who is investigating the assault case.

"Balachandrakumar's statement does not mention that Dileep threatened to harm Baiju Poulose. But the FIR mentions the officer's name," Dileep's lawyer said.

Dileep also reiterated that Balachandrakumar had a grudge against him as he had backed off a film project the two had planned.

"Balachandrakumar wanted Dileep to announce the film and talk to some people whom the former owe money," Dileep's lawyer argued.

Dileep submitted in the Kerala High Court that the prosecution had presented fabricated audio clips against them.

In a written argument, Dileep and others said the audio clips were prepared with the help of mimicry artists.

They further argued that the clips did not contain any conversation, but pieces of monologues.

Even if filmmaker Balachandrakumar's claims were accepted, charges of conspiracy and abetment of crime would not have any legal standing, Dileep's counsel argued.

Dileep has not confessed to making the statement.

2017 sexual assault case

A leading south Indian actress had complained that she had been abducted and sexually assaulted by a gang in 2017 and the incident was filmed to blackmail her.

After the main accused Pulsar Suni was arrested and questioned, Dileep was accused of being the main conspirator and arrested.

According to the prosecution, Dileep, who is presently out on bail after spending two months in jail in 2017, had also seen the visuals of the sexual assault. 

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.