The prosecution plea to cancel the bail granted to actor Dileep in the actor rape case was declined by the Special Court as it lacked merit and the court could not find any “overwhelming circumstance to order the cancellation of bail that was once granted.”
Dismissing the plea, Special Judge Honey M. Varghese noted that the prosecution could not prove the allegation that Dileep influenced or interfered with the investigation, tampered with the evidence and involved himself in the commission of grave crime while out on bail.
The allegation that Dileep had even tried to influence the court “lost its legs to stand in the absence of convincing evidence. The prosecution had alleged that the reference of Avar (in Malayalam) in the conversation, which was retrieved from Dileep’s phone, was the presiding judge of the trial court.
However, the court held that the prosecution failed to identify the ownership of the voice clip and also the person referred to as Avaru. Even if it was assumed that the term Avaru represented the judicial officer, the court asked how and why the prosecution was very particular to argue that the term represented the presiding judge of the trial court. It appeared to be a fanciful version created in accordance with the whims and fancies of the prosecution without any material to support the allegation, the judge noted.
The court refused to rely on the alleged sound clip of Dileep and others reportedly conspiring to finish off the investigation officers, which was allegedly recorded by filmmaker Balachandrakumar.
The court made clear that it was premature to comment on the authenticity of the alleged voice clips as the criminal investigation in the case was progressing.
The file properties of the sound clip indicated that it was created on January 2, 2022 and the date of last writing was shown as between November 7, 2021 and December 5, 2021 and the date of last access was shown as January 3, 2022. Incidentally, the prosecution had argued that the sound clip was recorded during November, 2017. The prosecution could not make available any material to substantiate the contention, the court said.
On the deleted WhatsApp messages, which were later retrieved from Dileep’s phone, the court noted that the prosecution failed to identify the persons to whom the messages were sent and also its contents and produce any evidence in this regard.
