Dileep Case : Kerala High Court Directs Handing Over Of Surrendered Mobile Phones To JFCM Aluva

Justice Gopinath P. issued the following directions in the matter today: 

1) Mobile phones surrendered by accused Dileep and others before Registrar General, High Court of Kerala directed to be handed over to the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court (JFCM-1 Aluva)

2) Receipt to be issued by the lower Court on receiving the same accordingly.

3) Counsel for the petitioner undertakes to provide with unlocking pattern/number of the respective phones.

4) JFCM-1 Aluva, to decide whether the phones should be sent for forensic examination, if so, to which agency.

5)High Court noted that the Investigating Officer has verified and ascertained phones specified as SL No:2 to 7 in the criminal miscellaneous application by State.

(6) Matter to be listed for further consideration on 04/02/22 (Time slot to be intimated later).

"Pursuant to the order dated January 29, 2022, 6 mobile phones were produced before the Registrar General of this court. Today the Investigation Officer has verified that phones produced before this court are phones mentioned as no.2-6...The phones 2-6 shall be transferred forthwith to the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva. The counsel for the petitioners also undertakes unlocking codes/patterns shall be provided to the Court if necessary." 

The Court had on Saturday directed all the accused to hand over six mobile phones to its Registrar General in a sealed box by 10.15 am on Monday. the accused handed over these phones to the Registry as directed.

However, the Judge passed no orders regarding the phones submitted by the accused today and observed that this issue will also be decided tomorrow.

While Director General of Prosecution T.A. Shaji urged for these phones to be handed over to the Crime Branch, Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai appearing for Dileep vehemently contended the same.

The Senior Counsel had also hinted that the accused might move a petition for CBI enquiry into the case:

"We are also filing a petition for CBI investigation. What sort of case is this? A Crime Branch DySP is fabricating a case".

It was also argued that on the basis of the materials available in the case, bail would not be ordinarily denied.

"The case has been registered on the basis of a 161 statement in another crime. What is the probative value of that? This has been fabricated to get custody of the petitioner (Dileep) which they could not do in five years of the other case," it was contended.

The developments ensued after the prosecution submitted an application accusing Dileep and his men of attempting to destroy critical evidence in the ongoing investigation. This was filed in the anticipatory bail plea moved by the actor and others.

The Crime Branch had argued that although the accused made themselves available for the interrogation as directed by the Court, they refused to hand over the mobile phones they used prior to January 2022 to the investigating officers.

When asked to surrender the same, they apparently denied to do so taking a stand that notice under Section 91 is not maintainable and that the mobile phones were sent for forensic examination through their lawyers.

Thus, the prosecution argued that the accused had purposefully removed their mobile phones and attempted to conceal and thereby destroy the evidence under the pretext of sending it to examination.

They added that since the main allegation against them is the commission of criminal conspiracy to harm the life of the investigating officers, digital evidence is of most importance to unearth the offence.

Therefore, the prosecution asserted that the mobile phones used by the petitioners for a considerable period after 2017 are primary materials to be subjected to examination as a part of the criminal investigation and that they are absolutely necessary to be taken into custody for the purpose of investigation.

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 has been filed under non-bailable sections.

Apprehending arrest, Dileep, his brother P. Sivakumar and his brother-in-law T.N.Suraj approached the Court praying for anticipatory bail.

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