[Dileep anticipatory bail plea] Kerala High Court order on Monday [Read summary of hearings]

The Kerala High Court will pronounce its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea moved by Malayalam cine actor Dileep in the case of alleged conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the 2017 actress sexual assault case against him. [P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice Gopinath P heard the matter at length over several days, including two physical hearings on the last two Saturdays, and reserved it for order on Friday. .Dileep and his associates were already being tried by at the Additional Sessions (CBI special No III) Court in Ernakulam for allegedly planning and executing a revenge crime against a prominent actress by having her abducted, sexually assaulted and photographed in a moving vehicle. .The trial which has seen its share of controversies was nearing completion when a film director Balachandra Kumar gave an interview and released some audio clips indicating close association between Dileep, the 8th accused in the case, and Pulsar Suni, the 1st accused. The clips and Kumar's statements also revealed a conspiracy to kill the police officers who were involved in the investigation.This led to registration of an FIR against Dileep and five others for offences punishable under Sections 116 (offering bribe to public servant), 118 (concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code..The main arguments raised by the accused seeking anticipatory bail and the prosecution are summarised below. .The Contentions of the Accused - represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocates Philip T Varghese, Thomas T Varghese, Achu Shubha Abraham, Litha VT, Monisha KR and Nitya RThe charge of conspiracy under Section 120B of IPC will not be attracted as the audio clippings reveal only a mere utterance, not an agreement between parties to commit any crime;The FIR was registered on the basis of a 161 statement given in the 2017 case. An unsigned 161 (CrPC) statement cannot be used to register an FIR;The Section 161 statement only does not reveal anything about a conspiracy;The complaint was forwarded to the Crime Branch Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) when it should have been sent to the Station House Officer at the concerned Police Station;Balachandra Kumar is unreliable and has ulterior motives as Dileep had turned down his request to announce a film directed by him;Kumar's statements suffer from various inconsistencies and he has concocted a story using his imagination, script-writing experience and audio manipulating abilities;Kumar was tutored by the Investigating Officer in the 2017 assault case, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) Baiju Paulose, who harbors resentment against Dileep as he was unable to find enough evidence to establish his guilt in that case;The prosecution is seeking to protract the sexual assault trial and enable further investigation even though the time limit stipulated by the Supreme Court, Feb 16, is getting closer;The accused showed reluctance in handing over some old mobile phones as there were privileged conversations and they have the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3);Dileep and the other accused have co-operated with the investigation, underwent 33 hours of interrogation and custodial interrogation is no longer necessary..The Contentions of the Prosecution - led by Director General of Prosecution, Senior Advocate TA Shaji instructed by Senior Public Prosecutor P Narayanan. The charge of conspiracy will be attracted as there were repeated discussions of harming the police officers, including discussions about payment;After Kumar gave the 161 statement, a further statement was recorded and that was when the danger came to light of a conspiracy to kill the investigating officers and other officials;DySP Baiju Paulose, contacted the ADGP Crime Branch with a complaint as threats were made against him and he is the de-facto complainant;Kumar is a credible and reliable witness who has provided audio recordings to corroborate his claims. There are no inconsistencies in his statements regarding material facts. Any minor inconsistencies only prove their veracity and that he was not tutored;There is nothing wrong in registering an FIR if a cognizable offence is revealed in a statement; FIR need not be an encyclopedia;The investigation is at its preliminary stages but ample evidence has been collected which would result in conviction at a trial;After Kumar's statements were registered, the accused immediately changed their mobile phones;The accused have not co-operated with the investigation, they tried to not submit phones and their pass codes;The accused are trying to delay the case as it would benefit them;Going by the grievous nature of accusations, they are not worthy of getting anticipatory bail;Their unwillingness to co-operate and capability to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses makes custodial interrogation necessary. In the sexual assault trial, over 20 prosecution witnesses turned hostile which indicates their ability to manipulate;There is a need to insulate the society from such elements as well as to ensure that the public do not lose faith in the system by giving a celebrity any special treatment..The Court has stated that prima facie it seems that there are disturbing materials against Dileep.Justice Gopinath said that after going through the judgments relied on by the prosecution and the accused, there are some key points that stand out which are as follows:Conspiracy by itself is a significant offence;It is difficult to prove conspiracy as it is often hatched behind closed doors;Mere utterances are not enough, there must be a plan or an agreement to commit a crime..The Court also commented on the intense scrutiny of the media on the case. Interestingly, Dileep has also approached the Kerala High Court with a separate plea seeking to restrain the media from reporting on the trial of the sexual assault case till the final verdict is pronounced..The Court is expected to pronounce verdict on February 7 at 10:15 am.