The Kerala High Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to actor Dileep and four other accused in the case relating to hatching a conspiracy to murder the investigation officers in the actor sexual assault case.
The case has been registered in the wake of director Balachandrakumar's revelations in this regard in his interview given to a TV channel.
The accused who got anticipatory bail included the actor's brother P. Sivakumar and brother-in-law T.N.Suraj.
According to Dileep and others, the registration of the FIR was "nothing but a vindictive and retaliatory act of investigation officer Baiju Paulose" against whom Dilpeep had initiated criminal contempt of court proceedings for causing obstruction to the administration of justice before the Additional Special Sessions Court trying the assault case
During the hearing on the bail pleas,Counsel for the petitioners had contended that the criminal conspiracy alleged against them was untenable. The voice clips produced by Balachandrakumar did not reveal any statement, much less discussion or agreement, to commit any criminal conspiracy. In fact, the basic ingredient for an offence of conspiracy that there should be two or more persons was absent in the case.
The allegations in the FIR were a flight of fancy. The counsel argued that custodial interrogation was sought to harass, and humiliate the petitioners and with a "clandestine motive of fabricating confessional statements and staging recovery, especially to incriminate the petitioners in ongoing sessions trial case"(sexual assault case)
The Director General of Prosecution while vehemently opposing the bail pleas had contended that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the case.Director Balachandrakumar,a direct witnesses to the hatching of the conspiracy was supported by digital evidence.In fact, the removal of their mobile phones by the accused immediately after disclosure of Balachandrakumar was a strong pointer towards the commission of the offence by the petitioner
He had submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was a must for conducting the investigation in an effective manner.It would not be possible to proceed with the investigation fruitfully if they were granted anticipatory bail.