Twists, turns, trials & gags: Is actor Dileep getting kid-glove treatment?

Five long years have passed, and the progress of the high-profile case Malayalam actor allegedly involved in has not reached anywhere with dramatic turns, twists and gags. Yes, the Kerala police have not been able to connect many dots (shoddy investigation?), but many in legal circles say this case has no parallel in Indian history with Dileep getting repeated reprieves.

That triggers the question: Is Dileep being treated differently? Incidentally, the Kerala High Court itself asked the same question about the perception of the case, in general.

To recap, Dileep is the eighth accused in the rape and abduction of a Malayalam actress, reported in February 2017. The actor’s name cropped up recently when producer P Balachandra Kumar, once close to Dileep, told the police that the actor allegedly threatened to kill the investigating officers probing the case.

The Kerala High Court heard Dileep’s anticipatory bail petition on Tuesday ((February 1) and posted the matter to February 3.

Relief for Dileep

The court also handed over the phones (all but one) belonging to Malayalam actor Dileep and two others to the Chief Judicial Magistrate court in Aluva despite repeated requests from the prosecution to pass them to investigation officers.

The court has decided to hand over the seized phones to the magistrate court instead of police, much to the relief of Dileep, who argued that he would not hand them over to the police because he “did not trust them”. The High Court, in turn, told the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court to take an appropriate decision on handing over the phones to the prosecution and whether they should be sent for forensic investigation and to which agency.

Is Dileep being treated differently?

During Tuesday’s argument, Kerala HC justice Gopinath expressed concern about the public perception that Dileep is being treated differently. “I am being told that this accused is being treated differently. I cannot encourage that. Tomorrow any accused can come to the court and claim the same treatment,” the judge said while hearing the argument on bail petition.

While seeking the quashing of Dileep’s anticipatory bail petition, Director General of Prosecution T A Shaji raised a vital question in the court: “What is so special about this accused? If anticipatory bail is granted to him, it will set a bad precedence”.

The question raised by the prosecution to the single bench of the High Court is one which is being asked by thousands of people, the ordinary public watching the whole “drama” over the last few weeks. What makes Dileep ‘a special and privileged rape accused’? Will an ordinary person get the same attention, extra time of the court and protection from arrest in such cases?

During the trial since February 2017, 20 prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. Few could understand what was happening in the trial court as Dileep managed to get a gag order on the media twice – once in 2017 and later in 2020. The 2020 gag order was based on the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Nipun Saxena V Union of India case, in which the court had barred the media from reporting the rape trials for protecting the identity and dignity of the victim.

Dileep was first arrested in July 2017, about four months after the actress was abducted and raped by eight men. Dileep’s name cropped up after a letter written by the prime accused in the case, Pulsar Suni, got leaked. It was allegedly written by Suni to Dileep, which revealed the Malayalam actor’s involvement in the crime.

After spending 85 days in jail, Dileep was released on bail in October 2017 on the condition that he would not try to influence the witness. However, two prosecution witnesses — one from Thrissur and the other from Kannur — filed complaints with police alleging that they were intimidated by a group of strangers to depose in favour of Dileep during the trial. Two FIRs were lodged on the basis of their complaints. “In the usual course of law, the bail would immediately be cancelled if such an FIR is lodged. Not to try to influence or intimidate witnesses is a fundamental bail condition imposed on all accused,” said Kerala High Court lawyer Ajakumar.

The case of the missing phone

Dileep and the other accused had deposited their cell phones before the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court on Monday (January 31).

Though the prosecution submitted the CDR and IME numbers of seven mobile phones (four used by Dileep and the rest by others), Dileep produced only three mobile phones in the court. The actor failed to submit the fourth phone, which the prosecution says, was allegedly used to make some 12,000 calls recently.

Besides, the prosecution repeatedly asked for the “custody” of the phones, but the single bench of the High Court did not oblige and gave them to the Magistrate Court in Aluva instead.

Also read: Dileep can impede probe, shouldn’t be given anticipatory bail: Crime Branch

Investigation officers had submitted that Dileep was claiming that he had no knowledge of the phone in question. “They are claiming it is not with them. But we have records that show that it was used until very recently. Over 12,000 calls were made from the phone. How can they deny its existence,” asked the prosecution?

The crime branch team, which is investigating the fresh charge against Dileep of conspiring to murder investigating police officers, has not even been able to seize cell phones used by Dileep and other accused. Dileep’s lawyer argued that the actor does not trust the Kerala police, nor the forensic labs under the Kerala Government. Hence, he had sent the phones to a private lab for forensic examination.

After hours and hours of argument, in the special sitting on January 29, the High Court passed an order asking the cell phones to be deposited in the court on January 31.

Cat-and-mouse game

“This cat-and-mouse game does not have any such parallel in the Indian judiciary. Seizing mobile phones is very fundamental in any investigation. Here the Kerala Police is not even able to go with the basic procedures of an investigation-custodial interrogation and seizure of material,” said advocate Ajakumar. “If this is not privilege, what else is?” he asked.

The prosecution’s repeated demand to get Dileep in custody for interrogation was turned down by the High Court once again. “There are many Supreme Court judgments asserting the importance of custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court has observed that custodial interrogation is not violative of Article 21 –one’s right to life- if the police find it necessary,” said Harish Vasudevan, another High Court lawyer.

Several other lawyers said they had never witnessed such an unusual hearing of a bail petition ever before.

Another twist? 

Meanwhile, Saleesh Vettiyattil, an IT expert associated with Dileep for long, died in an accident last year. On January 31, 2022, Saleesh’s family filed a complaint with the Angamaly police station in Ernakulam district, seeking an investigation into the road accident. Alleging foul play, they said Saleesh’s death was unnatural.