Director had falsely claimed Bishop’s intervention for bail, Dileep tells HC

Special CorrespondentJanuary 23, 2022 18:25 IST
Updated: January 23, 2022 18:25 IST

‘Revelations made when examination of investigating officer set to begin’

Terming false director Balachandrakumar’s allegation that a conspiracy was hatched by actor Dileep to harm the investigation officers in the actor sexual assault case, the actor told the Kerala High Court that the director had earlier falsely claimed that he got bail in the case due to his intervention through the Bishop of Neyyattinkara.

In a reply statement filed in their anticipatory bail case on Saturday, Dileep and four others said that “Mr. Balachandrakumar’s wife was a Latin Catholic Christian and he claimed that he had close relationship with the Bishop of Neyyattinkara who, he claimed, is close to various dignitaries like the Chief Minister, Ministers, senior police officers and so on. Mr. Balachandrakumar said that he would inform the Bishop of the entire details about the false implication of the 1st petitioner (Dileep) and the Bishop would inform the dignitaries the true facts and that would result in proper investigation.”

Dileep and others also alleged that Mr. Balachandrakumar had fabricated and circulated, what he claimed, WhatsApp chats between the actor and his brother P. Sivakumar and his brother-in-law T.N. Suraj regarding the Bishop’s intervention in the grant of bail to him. However, the petitioners refused to make any payment to the director.


Not a friend

Mr. Balachandrakumar was not a friend of any of the petitioners. He was an unknown scriptwriter/director whom he tried to support, both professionally and financially. It was with malice and ulterior motives that Mr. Balachandrakumar had turned against the petitioners and raised fabricated allegations against them.

Mr. Balachandrakumar was one among the nearly 80 visitors he met when he was in jail for a period of over 80 days. Mr. Balachandrakumar was aggrieved about the movie getting delayed. The actor claimed that the director told him that he would get the bail cancelled unless he immediately announced that he was acting in a movie with Mr. Balachandrakumar as the director.


The timing of the revelations was noteworthy. The revelations about an alleged incident that took place on November 15, 2017 was made after 4 years and 40 days, at a time when the examination of the de facto complainant — investigating officer Baiju Paulose — was scheduled from December 29, Dileep told the court.

Mr. Balachandrakumar had stated that he repeatedly phoned in April 2021 B. Sandhya, Additional Director General of Police, who supervised the sexual assault case , but she did not respond. The statement was made by him falsely "so as to cover up the role of the said officer in hiring him to raise false allegations to disrupt the ongoing trial," Dileep said.

The digital evidence claimed by the director was "fragments of speech or broken words whose time of recording, sequence of recording, manner of recording etc. were uncertain," the actor said.

He also said that "implication of an innocent person like the petitioner in the said crime on the absurd and ridiculous allegation of committing conspiracy is unparalleled in the history of any country following the rule of law".

Related Topics