R Krishnakumar, DH News Service, Thiruvananthapuram, Jul 25 2017, 0:42 IST
The investigation against the accused is into the conspiracy behind the case and it cannot be proved by direct evidence, the court observed. pti file photo
A single bench of the Kerala High Court on Monday denied bail to actor Dileep who is in judicial custody in connection with alleged conspiracy in the abduction of molestation of an actress in Kochi.
Citing evidence presented by the prosecution, the court said prima facie there were materials to suspect involvement of the petitioner in the crime. The Director General of Prosecution Manjeri Sreedharan Nair submitted that Appunni, the actor’s manager, was absconding and possibilities of other persons being implicated could not be ruled out.
“The case is unique, considering its seriousness, meticulous planning, cruel nature of execution and being a crime executed to wreak vengeance on a woman by engaging criminals, to sexually abuse her. Courts have to be circumspect in granting bail in such cases,” the judge, Sunil Thomas, said. The Special Investigation Team is likely to present the actor at the Angamaly Judicial First Class Magistrate court on Tuesday and seek an extension to his custody. Dileep, arrested on July 10, was remanded in judicial custody till July 25.
The actress was molested by the prime accused in the case, Sunilkumar aka ‘Pulsar’ Suni, on February 17 in a moving car in Kochi. The sexual assault was also shot on a mobile phone camera by Suni’s aides. Dileep is alleged to have met Suni at five different locations to hatch the conspiracy. The prosecution case is that Dileep conspired with Suni against the actress who had passed information about Dileep to his first wife which led to their divorce, in 2015.
The court said the actor’s bail plea had to rejected also because the mobile phone used for recording the sexual assault and the memory card with the footage were yet to be recovered. “...there is every possibility of any of the accused attempting to interfere in the investigation and the prosecution with the memory card,” the judgment said. The court also observed that possibilities of the petitioner influencing or threatening witnesses from the film industry could not be ruled out.