Dileep actress assault case: Kerala High Court seeks sessions court report on delay in trial

The Kerala High Court has sought a report from the Ernakulam Principal District and Sessions Court on the status of the trial in the 2017 actress assault case in which Malayalam cine actor Dileep is an accused. .The trial in the case has been pending for over 7 years. The Registrar (District Judiciary) of the High Court sought a report from the sessions court after journalist MR Ajayan wrote to the High Court Chief Justice raising concerns regarding the delay in the sensational case. .History of the caseSix persons were arrested and arrayed as accused after the female actor was abducted in a car and sexually assaulted, allegedly at Dileep’s behest.It was alleged that the victim had a role to play in Dileep’s separation from his now ex-wife.In July 2017, Dileep was arrested and charged under various offences under the IPC, including Sections 366 (kidnapping), 120B (criminal conspiracy) , and 376D (gangrape).His first two attempts at getting bail were rejected by the Kerala High Court until October 2017 when the Court finally granted him bail after he had remained in custody for 83 days.In November 2019, the Supreme Court partly allowed a plea filed by Dileep seeking access to a memory card which contains video footage of the assault. While he was not permitted to receive a copy of the memory card, he was granted permission to inspect the contents of the same – subject to some caveats – in order to present an effective defence.Nearly a year later, the prosecution sought permission to transfer the trial to another judge, citing several instances of the case being delayed on various pretexts, and certain allegations and imputations being made by the judge against the prosecutor and the special prosecutor.However, in November 2020, the Kerala High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the prosecution and the survivor to transfer the trial from the additional sessions court presently hearing the matter to another Judge.The prosecution in the case, led by Special Public Prosecutor A Suresan, had voiced its protest over some allegedly derogatory remarks made by the additional sessions judge hearing the assault matter. Suresan resigned in December 2020.In December 2021, Suresan's replacement Special Public Prosecutor Anil Kumar also handed in his resignation.After the survivor wrote to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan seeking a fair trial, the Kerala Government approached the Supreme Court seeking a 6 month extension on the time limit stipulated by the top court for completion of trial. In January 2022, the survivor took to social media with her first public statement on her journey as a survivor and the many trials and tribulations she had to face since the woeful incident took place. She later moved the High Court, alleging foul play in the investigation. The State prosecution then approached the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time to complete the trial in the assault case. The top court disposed of the same stating that it was up to the trial court to take an appropriate decision in that regard.In the meantime, the Kerala High Court allowed the prosecution to summon 5 additional witnesses.In March 2022, the Kerala High Court declined to quash further investigation into the sexual assault case and dismissed Dileep's plea in that regard.The trial was nearing completion when a film director, Balachandra Kumar, gave an interview to media and released some audio clips indicating close association between Dileep, who is the 8th accused in the case, and Pulsar Suni, the 1st accused.The clips and Kumar's statements allegedly revealed a conspiracy to kill the police officers who were involved in the investigation of the actress assault case.This led to registration of a fresh FIR against Dileep and five others. The Kerala High Court granted the accused including Dileep anticipatory bail in the matter. However, it refused to quash the FIR..Meanwhile, the survivor actress moved the Kerala High Court again seeking a court monitored probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the State police into the alleged unauthorised access of the memory card with visuals of the assault when it was in the custody of the trial court. But the High Court ordered the sessions court to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into the allegations raised by the survivor and allowed her access to a copy of witness statements recorded during the enquiry. .In 2018, Dileep had moved the High Court seeking to transfer the investigation in the case to the CBI, contending that the investigation carried out by the state police was biased against him. However, a single-judge dismissed his petition, prompting him to file an appeal in 2019. The appeal remained pending for years until nearly six years later in 2025, Dileep decided to press for CBI probe once again. In April 2025, a division bench of the Court dismissed the plea.