Actor assault case: Kerala HC declines plea for cancelling bail granted to actor Dileep

Kerala High Court has declined to interfere with the order of Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court rejecting the plea of the Crime Branch for cancelling the bail granted to actor Dileep, an accused in the actor sexual assault case, in view of the fact the trial in the case is nearing completion.

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with the order of the Ernakulam Additional Sessions Court rejecting the plea of the Crime Branch (CB) for cancelling the bail granted to actor Dileep, an accused in the actor sexual assault case, in view of the fact the trial in the case is nearing completion.

Justice Sophy Thomas, while disposing of the petition seeking cancellation of the bail, observed that “if the bail is cancelled at this juncture, it may lead to further litigations and complications, which may frustrate the trial which is about to be completed, and may drag the proceedings indefinitely. Let the trial be completed and the case be disposed of at the earliest.”

Director General of Prosecution T.A. Shaji had expressed apprehensions that the sessions court observations in its order rejecting the plea for cancelling the bail might have an adverse impact on the appreciation of evidence at the final stage of trial. He, therefore, sought clarification on these observations.

The sessions court had observed that it could not conclude that the accused (Dileep) deleted the evidence in connection with the case for the simple reason that the forensic science laboratory (FSL) report contains the fact that the accused deleted some conversation and that the court could not hold that he had caused the disappearance of evidence simply for the reason that the mobile phone was subjected to examination in a private lab.

The judge pointed out that since the sessions court had made some observations and findings which may tend to appear that the sessions judge had made up her mind as to the destruction of evidence and influencing/threatening the witnesses and so on as alleged by the prosecution, this should be clarified.

The Bench clarified that the findings and observations of the trial court were only for the purpose of disposing of the petition and it should not affect the appreciation of evidence in the case pending before trial court (sessions court).