Kochi

Phones of Dileep, two others must be handed over to Registrar General of Kerala HC

Malayalam actor Dileep. File.
The Hindu BureauJanuary 29, 2022 14:06 IST
Updated: January 29, 2022 14:06 IST

The prosecution has all rights to seek custody of the cell phones of actor Dileep and the others and to inspect them with the help of a notified agency, says the interim order passed by Justice Gopinath P.

Three mobile phones of actor Dileep, two of his brother Anup and one owned by the actor’s brother in law Suraj must be handed over in a sealed cover to the Registrar General of Kerala High Court on the morning of January 31, the Kerala High Court said on January 29, in an interim order.

The order was passed during a special hearing on the Crime Branch probe that is underway against them on the alleged conspiracy that they hatched to harm police officers who were investigating the actor assault case, wherein actor Dileep had challenged the probe team‘s demand to produce the mobile phones he had used at the time of the alleged conspiracy. Dileep and others had earlier sought anticipatory bail in the case.

The prosecution has all rights to seek custody of the cell phones of actor Dileep and the others and to inspect them with the help of a notified agency, says the interim order passed by Justice Gopinath P.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Expressing distrust in the probe team, Dileep had sought examination of his phones by an agency outside Kerala. Contrary to claims of the probe team that he had used a fourth mobile phone, the actor contended that he used only three phones. The prosecution expressed the confidence that the probe team would procure call details of the fourth phone using its IMEI number.

The prosecution alleged that Dileep changed his mobile phone soon after film director Balachandrakumar’s statement that the actor and the others had conspired to do away with police officers probing the actor-assault case in which Dileep was arrayed as an accused.

Claiming that his phones contained personal information, Dileep had said that the police cannot demand an accused to produce any evidence against him. The act of the police amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights and was an infringement on his right to privacy, his counsel contended. The prosecution had countered this saying the phones contained clues about the alleged crime.

Read more...