Kochi: A close reading of the High Court order rejecting the bail application of actor Dileep would show that the police alleged conspiracy and tried to connect the petitioner on the basis of circumstantial evidences. The court made some observations about the prosecution argument when it said the disclosures made by first accused Pulsar Sunil during investigation about the conspiracy he had hatched with the petitioner and those made to others have led to the discovery of several crucial materials and facts. The court said the conspiracy angle is sought to be established by alleging that Dileep had met Suni at five different specified places, where the conspiracy was hatched. One was in a hotel wherein the petitioner allegedly instructed Suni to commit the act and offered to pay the huge amount.
Hotel records are relied on by the prosecution to establish that the room was booked in the name of Dileep. “The presence of Dileep and Suni at all the five places at the same time is sought to be established by call record details, tower location of mobiles or by direct oral evidence, gathered by the investigation,” the court noted. The court also made a mention of the prosecution argument that Dileep’s complaint dated April 20, 2017 to the director-general of police was a clever move to preempt a possible revelation of his involvement in the crime by Suni.
Prosecution relied on the materials available on record to contend that investigation has gathered sufficient materials to establish the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy. They fall into two categories: those materials prior to the actual commission of offence and the conduct of the accused subsequent to the commission of offence.
Dileep contended that he is absolutely innocent and is sought to be roped in to the crime consequent to a deep rooted conspiracy. None of the 19 circumstances mentioned in the remand report was connected with his, he argued and said “there was not even an iota of evidence to connect him with the incident, much less, with any part of the conspiracy.” Even assuming that Suni was available at places where the petitioner, himself being a popular artist, was present, that by itself is not sufficient to establish conspiracy, he contended.