Kerala HC gives actor Dileep, 4 others anticipatory bail in conspiracy case

Last month, the Crime Branch police registered the conspiracy case against Dileep, his brother Sivakumar, his brother-in-law T N Sooraj and three others, one of them not identified so far, based on the disclosure of the actor’s estranged friend and film director Balachandrakumar in media.

The case was registered under Sections 116 (abetting of an offence), 118 (concealing design to commit an offence), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Dealing a blow to the prosecution, the bench of Justice P Gopinath on Monday said, “Prima facie… there is no material to suggest that the accused had committed the offence of criminal conspiracy. Section 118 of the IPC will be attracted only if there is some material to suggest that there was a design to commit an offence. If there is material to suggest that there was a criminal conspiracy, as is suggested by the prosecution, the offence concealing design to commit an offence (IPC section 118) will also be attracted.”

The court also said there is nothing at present to suggest that the accused had done something to attract the provision relating to offence of abetment. “For an offence of abetment, something must be done. There is no material to suggest that an act or illegal omission had occurred for the accused in this case to be charged with an offence of abetment of that act or omission. Therefore, prima facie and for the purposes of these bail applications, it can be presumed that abetting of an offence (IPC section 116) is not attracted.”

On the criminal intimidation (Section 506 of IPC), the court said there is no case for the prosecution that any of the police officers had been directly threatened or intimidated by the accused. The court also said non-production of one of the mobile phones by the accused did not amount to non-cooperation of the accused with the investigation.

The court order on the anticipatory bail pleas came after several rounds of arguments between the petitioners and the prosecution. Dileep argued that the fresh case was a conspiracy hatched by Baiju Poulose, an investigating officer in the actor’s assault case. He alleged that the new case was fabricated as the prosecution charge against him in the abduction case was weak.

The court, which considered the anticipatory bail pleas, had allowed the Crime Branch to question Dileep and others for 33 hours spread over three days. Subsequently, the Crime Branch submitted the interrogation report in court. The investigators had sought the custody of seven mobile phones, which Dileep and his relatives had used in the past.

As Dileep was reluctant to hand over the mobile phones, the prosecution had to move the court, seeking a directive for seizing the devices. On January 29, the court directed Dileep and two of his close relatives to produce six mobile phones on January 31. After they handed over the mobile phones, the court sent the devices to the forensic laboratory for examination – and not to the Crime Branch to inspect.

The court, in its order on anticipatory bail said, “This case has generated a lot of media attention. Mainstream television media and social media have commented upon the way this court went upon its business in handling this case. The existence of a vibrant, independent and free press is no doubt essential to democracy. The constitutional courts in this country have been zealous to protect the freedom of speech and expression but this cannot be a licence for persons armed with half-baked facts with little or no knowledge of how the judiciary functions and little or no knowledge of the fundamental legal principles that govern it, abuse the justice delivery system.”