The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the plea of Malayalam actor Dileep searching for to droop additional probe into the 2017 abduction and sexual assault of a girl actor, by which he is among the accused.
Dismissing the actor’s petition, the bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered that the investigation needs to be accomplished by April 15.
Earlier this 12 months, the prosecution started additional investigation within the case following freshly made by movie director Balachandrakumar, an estranged buddy of Dileep, who’s the eighth accused within the assault case. Balachandrakumar had alleged that Dileep had seen footage of the sexual assault at his dwelling.
Dileep, he alleged, had a “close friendship” with the prime accused within the case, Sunil Kumar, alias Pulsar Suni, and bought entry to the video after being launched on bail. The trial courtroom later directed police to probe Balachandrakumar’s allegation that one of many accused within the case had seen a video of the assault earlier than the video was produced in courtroom.
️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to entry the perfect Election reporting and evaluation ️
While dismissing the petition, the High Court mentioned, “It is made clear that this courtroom has not made any findings or observations as to the veracity, truthfulness or reliability of the disclosures made by Balachandrakumar in his petition, or as to the genuineness, relevance or acceptability of any materials collected by the investigating company up to now within the ongoing additional investigation.
Police had submitted the ultimate report within the case in November 2017 and prices have been framed in January 2020. Trial within the case is happening at a particular courtroom in Kochi.
Dileep instructed the HC that Balachandrakumar is a device within the arms of the investigating officer and recent narrative made by him is a ready on the behist of the officer to manufacture proof in opposition to him. This got here after the officer realized that proof introduced in was inadequate to convict the petitioner (Dileep), the actor submitted.
The courtroom mentioned additional investigation is the privilege and prerogative of the investigating officer, and permission for it’s only a formality.
It mentioned inherent energy vested with the courtroom to quash additional investigation might solely be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, barring distinctive instances — equivalent to if additional investigation is frivolous, vexatious, or is maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, or the ability of the investigating officer is exercised malafide, or the place there may be abuse of energy.
The petitioner, the courtroom held, couldn’t set up any of those grounds.
,
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
