Kerala actor assault case: HC expunges prior judicial remarks citing prejudice to trial

The Kerala High Court, while dismissing actor Dileep’s plea for a CBI probe into the sexual assault of a female actor in Kochi in 2017, observed that certain remarks made by a single judge bench in an earlier order were “unnecessary” and could influence the ongoing trial in the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court. The observations were made on Monday, April 7, by a division bench comprising Justices AM Mustaque and P Krishna Kumar in response to Dileep’s appeal in a 2018 petition seeking a CBI investigation.

Dileep, the eighth accused in the sexual assault case, allegedly masterminded the crime. In 2018, he approached the HC seeking a CBI probe, citing bias on the side of the Kerala police. However, his plea was rejected by Justice Sunil Thomas. In 2019, the actor moved an appeal with the same request.

The appeal came up for final disposal on April 7, 2025, and LiveLaw reported that the HC orally commented on the actor seeking repeated adjournments in the appeal. In the final order, the division bench expunged a few observations made by Justice Sunil Thomas, citing that they downplayed the impact of media publicity on the investigation and were premature, as the influence of such coverage can only be assessed post-trial. 

The bench also criticised the judge’s observation that allegations of bias and selective investigation were unsustainable, adding that it was for the trial court to determine the fairness of the investigation upon the conclusion of the trial.

Dileep had contended before the single judge bench that the investigation was vitiated by selective leaks to the press and orchestrated media attention. He had also argued that excessive media coverage, particularly when it involves publishing prejudicial content or leaking investigative material, poses a serious risk to a fair trial. However, Justice Sunil Thomas, in his order, said that there was no “undue publicity given by the news agencies”. “...considering the nature of the case and the celebrity status of the petitioner and the de facto complainant, publicity in the media was inevitable,” the court had said. 

Critiquing this, the HC bench said, “How much the media publicity had affected the trial or not is a question that cannot be decided... unless the trial is concluded.” It held that such a finding was premature and must be removed from the records.

The HC also touched upon Dileep’s objection to the introduction of a new witness–police constable Aneesh– during the second round of investigation. According to the prosecution, Aneesh helped the prime accused, Pulsar Suni, to get in touch with Dileep. The actor, in his plea, argued that Aneesh was “set up by the investigating agency almost six months after the initiation of investigation” and contended that introducing him at a highly belated stage “casts suspicion on the prosecution.”

However, Justice Sunil Thomas rejected this contention, noting that Aneesh was a police officer who had been assigned to guard Pulsar Suni and that Suni had sought the help of Aneesh. The court said that this was “within the exclusive knowledge of the first accused alone” and only came to light when he voluntarily disclosed it during the second phase of the investigation. Therefore, Justice Thomas held that the introduction of Aneesh at a belated stage in itself cannot be a ground for further investigation.

The HC bench, on April 7, clarified that this observation could, at best, be seen as a justification for denying the petitioner’s plea for re-investigation. It observed, however, that the remark would in no way affect the petitioner’s right to challenge the introduction of such a witness.

The third instance pointed out by the HC concerned an observation made by Justice Sunil Thomas that none of the contentions regarding police bias and selective investigation can be grounds for investigation by another agency. 

The HC noted that it was for the trial court to decide whether the case had been biased or not, after the completion of the trial. It further added that this observation was only to reject the petitioner’s plea for re-investigation by another agency and not to approve or disapprove the investigation itself.

The HC bench also observed that the single judge’s conclusion that “there does not appear to be any material which establishes that the investigation was stained or biased” should be left open to be decided appropriately. 

“These are all matters to be decided by the trial court, at an appropriate level,” the HC observed.