Malayalam actress abduction: Dileep granted bail, told to keep away from victim
Kochi; Actor Dileep walked out of Aluva sub jail on Tuesday evening amid fans cheering the end of his 85-day judicial and police custody for his alleged role in the conspiracy to abduct and sexually assault a co-actor hours after the Kerala High Court allowed his third bail petition moved before it. The court ordered his release on a bond and two sureties for Rs 1 lakh each and directed that the actor “shall not directly, indirectly or through any agent try to influence, intimidate, threaten or coerce the victim or prosecution witnesses by any means including words expressed or disseminated through any media, including print, electronic or visual media.”
The bail is liable to be cancelled if he violated any of the conditions, the court said, and asked the actor to surrender his passport in seven days. Dileep was arrested on July 10 this year on conspiracy charges in the assault in Kochi on February 17. The first accused in the case Sunil Kumar a.ka.a Pulsar Suni had told the police that he committed the crime at the behest of Dileep.
The court recalled that it had dismissed his bail applications twice earlier because the allegation raised was very serious and there were prima facie materials to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy. The investigation was at a crucial stage and the mobile phone used for recording the sexual abuse and memory card it was recorded were not recovered. “There is a definite change of circumstances” now, the order said.
Though the petitioner was alleged to have engineered the crime “which is very serious”, he has not participated in the actual sexual assault, the court noted. The petitioner is charged with conspiracy for the crime and his role is sought to be established with circumstantial evidence, which includes both documentary and oral evidence. “Documentary evidence includes mobile call details, tower location records, bills, registers and other records,” the order said.
“Even regarding oral evidence, section 164 statements of more than 20 crucial witnesses have been recorded.” The court also noted that statements of all crucial witnesses have been recorded under section 161 of CrPC and “hence the further custody of the petitioner on the basis of the apprehension of interference in the trial at this stage may not be justified.” It was fifth time lucky for Dileep as the Judicial magistrate court, Angamaly, too had earlier dismissed his bail petition twice, though it had allowed him to time perform the anniversary rituals of his late father.
