Dileep got bail due to six reasons

KOCHI: The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to actor Dileep and five other accused in the conspiracy case due to the absence of accurate evidence. The court also ruled that there was no prima facie evidence to charge the accused with criminal conspiracy. The other accused in the case are Dileep's brother Anoop, brother-in-law TN Suraj, relative Appu and friend Baiju Chengamanad.

The verdict also said that there was no evidence that the accused had taken any action to commit the crime. The statements of Balachandra Kumar cannot be considered as prima facie evidence. The prosecution has no case to prove that the accused threatened any police officer directly or indirectly.

The fact that the accused did not produce a phone demanded by the prosecution did not mean that they are not cooperating with the investigation. The court ruled that the investigation could be carried out properly without taking the accused into custody.

The court also directed that if the accused are arrested, they should be produced before the court and released on a bond of Rs 1 lakh and two sureties of an equal amount. The Crime Branch can approach the High Court to cancel the bail if the bail conditions are violated.

Bail conditions

The accused must appear before the investigating officer when demanded. The accused should cooperate with the investigation. They should not destroy the evidence. Witnesses should not be intimidated or influenced. The passport must be produced in the Magistrate's Court. They should not get involved in other cases while on bail.

Things that favoured Dileep

1. The incidents in the audio clips are just conversations or curses
2. Officials failed to prove that Dileep was not cooperating with investigation
3. The FIR mentioned that Dileep had issued death threat. Later, this was corrected to conspiracy to commit murder
4. Contradictions in Balachandra Kumar's statement and complaint
5. Although the accused were questioned for three days, no substantial evidence were obtained
6. Wrong details were provided, including the date on which the investigating officer was allegedly threatened on court premises.

Things that proved to be setback for prosecution

1. The only evidence presented was the statements given by Dileep
2. Factual error in place, time, etc. when describing events
3. Salim's statement was not recorded. However, the prosecution claimed that his statement was recorded
4. Confusion regarding the statement of Dasan who was the gate watchman of Dileep's house
5. The names of the police officers were simply added to each statement
6. Prosecution failed to prove that the decisions in the conspiracy were taken together by the accused.