The Kerala High Court on Friday reserved for February 7 its order on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by actor Dileep and other accused in the case relating to hatching a conspiracy to murder the investigation officers in the actor sexual assault case.
When the anticipatory bail petitions came up for hearing, T.A. Shaji, Director General of Prosecution, while vehemently opposing the bail petitions pointed out that there was overwhelming evidence to prove the involvement of the petitioners in the case.
In fact, there was a person who had witnessed the criminal conspiracy hatched by them to harm the investigation officers. The statement of eyewitness Balachandrakumar was supported by digital evidence. The investigation officers had ascertained the credibility of the witness.
He argued that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners was a must for advancing the investigation in an effective manner. The offences alleged against them were very serious. It would not be possible to proceed with the investigation fruitfully if they were granted anticipatory bail.
Besides, the petitioners had enough muscle and money power and would influence the witnesses in the case. There was evidence that the petitioners had influenced the witnesses in the actor sexual assault case., he pointed out
Mr. Shaji pointed out that the court's protective order against the arrest of the petitioners had virtually "put a spoke in the wheels of the investigation" which was at a crucial stage. It enabled them to "conceal, manipulate and destroy digital evidence" and cripple an effective investigation.
He submitted that the removal of the mobile phones by the accused immediately on the disclosure of Balachandrakumar was a strong pointer towards the commission of offence by the petitioners. In fact, more mobile phones were to be recovered from the petitioners. They had entrusted their mobile phones with their own private computer technocrats. There was no guarantee that the mobile phones now surrendered by the petitioners had not been tampered with.
They had been actively involved in tampering with the evidence by misusing the interim order. It also prevented the investigating agency from making recovery of materials. The petitioners did not produce a mobile phone which was used for 221 days just five months back. They were not cooperating with the investigation despite the High Court directive. Therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail in the case, he argued.
