[Dileep] Kerala High Court declines to quash further investigation in the 2017 actress assault case

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to quash further investigation into the 2017 actress sexual assault case in which Malayalam cine actor Dileep is accused [P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v State of Kerala & Ors.].Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the plea moved by the actor, opining that the revelations made by film director Balachandra Kumar which spurred the further investigation, if found to be true, may impact the sexual assault case. "The revelations made by Sri. Balachandra Kumar and the supporting materials furnished by him, if found to be true, may have bearing on the case. The truthfulness or veracity of the said statement can neither be believed nor disbelieved at this stage," the Court said in its judgement..Relying on various judgments by the Supreme Court on the point, the Court held that further investigation may be conducted at the prerogative of the Investigating Officer in the case."It would be premature at this embryonic stage to pronounce conclusion based on hazy facts that revelations need not be probed into or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. This is an area which should be left to the investigating agency," the Court said..Therefore, the Court permitted further investigation by the investigating agency but directed it to complete the same and file its report as expeditiously as possible and not later than April 15, 2022.Dileep was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocates Philip T Varghese, Thomas T Varghese, Achu Shubha Abraham, Litha VT, Monisha KR and Nitya R.The prosecution was led by Senior Advocate TA Shaji, Director General of Prosecution..Dileep and his associates are being tried by at the Additional Sessions (CBI special No III) Court at Ernakulam for allegedly planning and executing a revenge crime against the survivor, 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.On January 3, the Investigating Officer (IO) in the case had informed the CBI Special Court that further investigation would be necessary in light of the new allegations.The clips and Kumar's statements revealed a conspiracy to kill the police officers who were involved in the investigation, and a new FIR was registered against Dileep and 5 others.He then approached the Court along with the other accused seeking anticipatory bail and the same was granted on February 7.Dileep then approached the High Court to prevent any further investigation into the sexual assault case or in the alternative, hand over the investigation to the CBI.In this plea, Dileep has repeated his allegation that registration of the FIR in the news case is nothing but "a vindictive and retaliatory act" of Deputy Superintendent of Police Baiju Poulose, Crime Branch.It was contended that the supposed victims of the new FIR, a DGP, IG, two SPs and a DySP are all working with the Crime Branch and were involved in the preparation of the final report in the 2017 actress sexual assault case. It was argued that the same impedes his right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.The State prosecution had recently approached the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time to complete the trial in the assault case. The top court had disposed of the same stating that it was up to the trial court to take an appropriate decision in that regard.In the meantime, the Kerala High Court allowed the prosecution to summon 5 additional witnesses.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.On February 24,2022, after several lengthy hearings, the High Court had reserved its verdict in the plea to quash further investigation. .[Read Judgment]