The Kerala High Court on Tuesday adjourned to September 26 the hearing on a fresh bail petition filed by actor Dileep for the fifth time in the case relating to sexual assault on woman actor .
When the petition, the third one filed in High Court, was taken up for hearing on Tuesday, the judge said there did not seem to be any change of circumstances in the case as of now. The mere fact that he had spent a few days in prison did not make any change in the circumstances. The investigation was still in progress. However, the court said that it would consider on the next posting date whether there is any change in the circumstances.
When queried by the court, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation was in the final stage and a final report would be filed in three weeks.
While dismissing his second bail plea, the same High Court judge had observed that the investigation was still in progress and there did not appear to be any substantial change of circumstance.
The Angamaly Judicial First Class Magistrate had dismissed his bail plea on Monday. The magistrate had observed that considering the gravity of the offence, he could only apply for default bail after 90 days of investigation. As per the remand report, Dileep had conspired with ‘Pulsar’ Suni, the first accused, to videograph the nudity of the victim in furtherance of the conspiracy to abduct and sexually assault the actress on February 17.
In his new bail petition, Dileep said that the investigation had proceeded after the dismissal of his bail application last time by the High Court. Therefore, there was no necessity to keep him in custody any longer. The petitioner was engaged in various film projects while he was being arrested. He had received advance amount to act in certain movies.
The continued detention of the petitioner was delaying the shooting and the release of these movies. This would have a catastrophic effect on the lives of many people working in the film industry. Besides, the investigation agency had no case that the petitioner had ever threatened or influenced any witnesses. So there was no justification for his continued detention on the ground of tampering evidence or influencing the witnesses, he contended.
As carried in TH on 21/9/2017