Dileep Accuses Director Balachandrakumar Of Extortion In His Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Before Kerala High Court

In the application seeking anticipatory bail from Kerala High Court, Malayalam cinema actor Dileep has made several allegations against director Balachandrakumar.

In his reply to a recent statement filed by the Crime Branch before the Kerala High Court, Dileep alleges that the director assured that he was close to the Bishop of Neyyattinkara, who was quite influential and had strong associations with the Chief Minister and senior police officers. 

It is also contended that the director offered to put in a word for Dileep with the Bishop that the actor was falsely implicated in the sexual assault case so that a proper investigation can be conducted and the actor may be acquitted.

However, according to the petitioner, when he was released on bail, the director claimed that it was due to his intervention and threatened to get it cancelled unless the actor immediately announced that he was working on a movie with the director.

Balachandrakumar has also been accused of having financial liabilities and demanded Dileep's intervention to keep his creditors at bay.

"Mr. Balachandra Kumar's intimidating and threatening behaviour resulted in the advocate who met him flatly refusing his demands. That lawyer informed the 1st petitioner that Mr. Balachandra Kumar appears to be an unscrupulous fraudster and the 1st petitioner should not associate with a person like him," reads the statement. 

Dileep has also alleged that the director demanded money from him after a month proclaiming that the Bishop had to be remunerated for his help.

"Kumar also demanded money under the pretext of making payments to few others, claiming that he had made commitments to pay those persons also if the first petitioner (Dileep) was released on bail," it said.

Meanwhile, the church has categorically denied all the allegations, saying the Bishop had no connection with either the actor or the director. 

In his reply, it is stated that the petitioner refused to pay the same until he met the people who had to be paid. Thereafter, the director allegedly forfeited his demand for such payment. 

However, the director is accused of having obtained Rs 50,000 in December 2017 under the pretext that he had vowed to some church to build a mast if Dileep was granted bail.

The reply also raises allegations against ADGP B. Sandhya, who was supervising the 2017 sexual assault case. It is stated that Sandhya has a 'track record' of fabricating evidence and implicating innocent persons to earn name and fame.

The director in his complaint had alleged that he had repeatedly contacted Sandhya in 2021 but she did not respond.

According to the petitioner, this was a false statement made to cover up Sandhya's role in hiring the director to raise false allegations to disrupt the ongoing trial and thereby persecute the petitioners.

On Saturday, the Court had granted interim relief to Dileep in the case and restrained the police from arresting him till January 27th.

Meanwhile, Dileep and the other accused were directed to appear before the police for interrogation at Crime Branch Office on 23rd, 24th and 25th January 2022 from 9 am till 8 pm.

The court had also directed the Public Prosecutor to submit a report regarding the interrogation and material evidence collected in a sealed cover.

The interrogation led by ADGP S Sreejith and IG Gopesh Agarwal reportedly lasted for 11 hours yesterday and will resume today. 

Concurrently, Dileep is facing trial as the alleged mastermind of the abduction and the sexual assault of a female actress in a moving car in 2017.

Earlier this month, director Balachandra Kumar had released audio recordings of people including Dileep trying to sabotage the case and obstruct the trial. In his statement, he added that Dileep and his men tried to endanger the lives of the officials.

Following his statements, the trial court had collected a confidential statement from the director.

Consequently, Dileep and five men were booked under Sections 116 (abetment), 118 (concealing design to commit offence), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) r/w Section 34 (common intention) of IPC. The new case was filed under non-bailable sections.

Simultaneously, the actor has also filed a plea before the High Court seeking a gag order in his trial in the assault case occurring at the lower court.

In that case, the Court has directed the State Police Chief to enquire into the allegations raised by the actor that the media was flouting the trial court's order restricting the publication of matters related to the case till the conclusion of the trial.

Case Title: P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors.