1

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT

ERNAKULAM

B.A No. 248 of 2022

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep

and others : Petitioners
Vs.

State of Kerala : Respondent

REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE STATEMENT

FILED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME
BRANCH, ERNAKULAM

1. A substantial portion of the contents of the Statement filed

by the Superintendent of Police and the documents
produced by him as Annexures R1(a), R1(b), R1(c) and
R1(d) are irrelevant as far as this application for
anticipatory bail is concerned. They are brought on record
with the intention of prejudicing this Hon’ble Court against
the petitioners and diverting the attention of this Hon’ble
Court from the relevant aspects. The said statement also
reveals the inability of the Investigating Officer to fairly and
dispassionately conduct investigation of the case and his
failure to critically assess the imaginary allegations which
are unsupported by any credible material.
 2

Registration of Crime No. 6/ 2022

2. This crime has been registered with the 2nd Investigating
Officer of Crime No. 297/ 2017 of Nedumbaserry Police
Station as the defacto complainant who is CW355 in the
2nd Final Report in Crime No.297/2017 dated 22.11.2017.
The defacto complainant was scheduled to be examined
as the last witness for the prosecution in S.C. No. 118/
2018 of the Additional Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)
III, Ernakulam on 29.12.2021. On that date he filed
application to defer his examination under the pretext of
conducting further investigation in Crime No. 297/ 2017
following the ‘revelations’ of one Mr. Balachandra Kumar.
That application shows that the revelation in the form of a
petition reached the defacto complainant the previous
night and within 12 hours he got satisfied that further
investigation has to be carried out and he filed report for
further investigation next day itself. Later, on 09.01.2022
the defacto complainant submitted Annexure J
petition/letter to the Head of the Crime Branch where he is
posted and obtained direction from him to get this crime
registered, that too with a direction that the investigation
be entrusted to the SP of the Crime Branch, the Unit in
which the defacto complainant is posted. The
Investigating Officer of Crime No. 297/ 2017 has thus
 3

donned the role of defacto complainant and got this Crime

registered in a Police Station of his choice while purporting
to conduct further investigation in Crime No. 297/2017.
This strange and calculated conduct of the Investigating
Officer of Crime No. 297/ 2017 in getting Crime No. 6/2022
registered with the Crime Branch Police Station itself
reveals the malafides in the matter.

3. Further Annexure F FIR is not registered on the basis of the

allegations contained in Annexure G detailed written
compliant of Mr. Balachandra Kumar running to 18 pages,
or in his first statement recorded under Section 161 on
01.01.2022 but it is registered on the basis of further
allegations which the defacto complainant claims to have
recorded in Annexure-I statement of Mr. Balachandra
Kumar thereafter. It appears that such a further statement
like Annexure-I was manipulated with the deliberate
intention and ulterior motive of registering Annexure-F FIR
The material allegations on which the FIR is registered are
not contained in Annexure G complaint or in Annexure-H
statement but are improvements and additions made when
the defacto complainant Police Officer created Annexure-I
statement of Mr. Balachandra Kumar. Similarly, several
deliberate false allegation which do not find a place in
Annexure-G complaint are thrust in Annexure-H statement
by the defacto complainant
 4

Mr. Balachandra Kumar and his revelations

4. Mr. Balachandra Kumar raised allegations against the
petitioners through Reporter TV channel on 25.12.2021 and
he has been omnipresent in several other television
channels and online news portals since then raising more
and more false and fabricated allegations against the
petitioners. His allegations have been widely published in
the print and social media also. The impression created
through the media is that Mr. Balachandra Kumar is an
‘intimate friend’ of the 1st petitioner and that claim is used
to lend credibility to his allegations. Mr. Balachandra
Kumar was never a friend of any of the petitioners. Such a
claim is not made even by Mr. Balachandra Kumar in
Annexure G, H and I complaint /statements. A reading of
these complaint/ statements would show that Mr.
Balachandra Kumar was an unknown wannabe script writer
/Director, whom the 1st petitioner tried to support, both
professionally and financially. It is with malice and ulterior
motives that Mr. Balachandra Kumar has turned against
the petitioners and raised fabricated allegations against
them, and other accused persons.

5. Mr. Balachandra Kumar had approached the 1st petitioner

as an aspiring wannabe script writer in 2014. Though he
had directed a movie earlier that had flopped in the box
office and had gone unnoticed. The plot of the stories
 5

narrated by him were unimpressive, but the character of a

pick pocket that he tried to picturise evoked the interest of
the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner told Mr. Balachandra
Kumar that if a story and script is prepared with such
character he could play the lead role. The 3rd petitioner
who was an NRI at that time had aspirations of becoming a
movie producer. Mr. Balachandra Kumar and the 3rd
petitioner thereafter tried to get the script of the movie
prepared with the character of a pick pocket in the lead
role. As the 3rd petitioner had no production banner, the
procedural formalities for registration of the movie title
PICK POCKET was done in 2015 through the production
banner of the 1st petitioner. As the attempt of Mr.
Balachandra Kumar to create a script for the movie was
unsuccessful due to the lack of his skill, Mr. Y.V. Rajesh, an
accomplished script writer was engaged to create the
script. When Mr. Balachandra Kumar realised that he could
not prepare the script for the movie he wanted to don the
role of Director of the movie and the 1st and 3rd petitioners
agreed for that also. Due to the conduct and behaviour of
Mr. Balachandra Kumar Mr. Y.V. Rajesh later withdrew
from the venture. Thereafter Mr. Balachandra Kumar
requested the 1st petitioner to have the script prepared by
the acclaimed script writer Mr. Sachy and the 1st petitioner
requested Mr Sachy’s involvement in the work. Though Mr.
Sachy and his associates tried to develop a script they also
 6

could not succeed due to the conduct and behaviour of Mr.

Balachandra Kumar. Till that date Mr. Balachandra Kumar
had not been able to develop a proper or acceptable story
or script for the proposed movie ‘PICK POCKET’ even by
15.04.2021 when the 1st petitioner severed his contacts
with Mr. Balachandra Kumar and blocked his telephone
number due to his intolerable and disgusting behaviour.

6. When the 1st petitioner was falsely implicated as an

accused and arrested in Crime No. 297/2017 of
Nedumbassery Police Station Mr. Balachandra Kumar was
one among the limited number of acquaintances of the
petitioners who came forward offering unflinching support
to him. He repeatedly expressed indignation about the
innocent 1st petitioner being framed by the Police. After
the arrest of the 1st petitioner and his widely published trial
by the media, Mr. Balachandra Kumar contacted
petitioners 2 and 3 and claimed that he would help them by
informing various dignitaries about the innocence of the 1st
petitioner. The wife of Mr. Balachandra Kumar is a Latin
Catholic Christian and he claimed that he has close
relationship with the Bishop of Neyyattinkara who he
claimed is close to various dignitaries like the Chief
Minister, Ministers, senior Police officers etc. Mr.
Balachandra Kumar said that he would inform the Bishop
the entire details about the false implication of the 1st
 7

petitioner and the Bishop would inform the dignitaries the

true facts and that would result in proper investigation
being carried out and the 1st petitioner being exonerated
from the false allegations when the final report is filed. Mr.
Balachandra Kumar was one among the nearly 80 visitors
that 1st petitioner had while he was in jail for a period of
over 80 days. However his claim that he visited the 1st
petitioner on invitation of the other petitioners is false.
After the 1st petitioner was released on bail Mr.
Balachandra Kumar falsely claimed that it was due to his
intervention through the Bishop of Neyyattinkara that the
1st petitioner was able to get bail. About a month after the
release of the 1st petitioner on bail Mr. Balachandra Kumar
demanded money claiming that Bishop of Neyyattinkara
had to be paid for the help rendered by him in securing bail
for 1st petitioner. Mr. Balachandra 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 1st petitioner was released on bail. The
petitioners refused to make any payment and demanded
that they wanted to meet the persons on whose behalf Mr.
Balachandra Kumar was claiming money. This resulted in
Mr. Balachandra Kumar abandoning his demand for money
for payment to others. However, Mr. Balachandra Kumar
repeatedly requested and obtained Rs. 50,000/- from the
3rd petitioner on or about December, 2017 under the pretext
 8

that he had made a vow to some church to build a mast for

the church if the 1st petitioner obtains bail. Thereafter Mr.
Balachandra Kumar has sent pictures of a mast claiming
that he got it constructed with Rs. 50,000/- that he took
from the 3rd petitioner.

7. After his release on bail in Crime No. 297/2017, the 1st

petitioner informed Mr. Balachandra Kumar that he cannot
act as a character with a criminal shade till the conclusion
of the trial of the case as that would create a false image
of the petitioner among the public. Hence the movie project
with the character Pick Pocket was not proceeded with.
Mr. Balachandra Kumar was aggrieved about the movie
getting delayed, though even the script for the movie had
not been prepared. He used to plead about his financial
difficulties and he has taken money from the 1st petitioner
till 24.12.2020. On 09.04.2021 Mr. Balachandra Kumar
sent a WhatsApp message to the 1st petitioner stating that
he wants to tell a very important thing relating to the
criminal case against the 1st petitioner and any of the
petitioners should meet him before the 14th. He said that if
none contacts him before April 14th, the bail granted to the
1st petitioner will be cancelled. He also sent the location of
his house. Not understanding what Mr. Balachandra
Kumar meant by the said message the 1st petitioner called
him but he did not attend the call. On 10.04.2021 Mr.
 9

Balachandra Kumar sent a message to the 1st petitioner

that he cannot speak on phone but only in person. In
another message sent on that date he stated that he is in
Madurai and would reach back only on the next day and if it
is not possible for the petitioners to meet him some other
person reliable person at Trivandrum who is reliable to
them should meet him. The 1st petitioner arranged for a
lawyer at Trivandrum to meet Mr. Balachandra Kumar. In
the meeting with the said lawyer Mr. Balachandra Kumar
alleged that he had wasted seven years from 2014
expecting the 1st petitioner to do a movie with him. He
claimed that the grant of bail to the 1st petitioner was at his
intervention and he would get the bail of the 1st petitioner
cancelled unless the 1st petitioner immediately announces
that he is acting in a movie with Mr. Balachandra Kumar as
the Director. He claimed that he has financial liabilities and
demanded intervention of the 1st petitioner 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. Mr. Balachandra Kumar
sent a voice note to the petitioner containing demands
similar to what he had told the lawyer and messages with
veiled threats. As the 1st petitioner was confident that the
 10

claim of Mr. Balachandra Kumar that he secured bail for

him was false he did not fear that Mr. Balachandra Kumar
could get his bail cancelled. The 1st petitioner did not try to
appease Mr. Balachandra Kumar but chose to block him
from his contacts with effect from 15.04.2021. The other
petitioners also blocked him from their contact list. Mr.
Balachandra Kumar had been sending threatening
messages to persons close to the 1st petitioner thereafter.
Mr. Balachandra Kumar fabricated and circulated what he
claimed were WhatsApp chats between him and the 2nd
and 3rd petitioners regarding the Bishop’s intervention in
the grant of bail to the 1st petitioner. A copy of that
fabricated WhatsApp chat was available in the house of the
1st petitioner and it is one among the documents seized
from his house during the search conducted in his house
on 13.01.2022. The 1st petitioner chose to ignore such
threats as he had nothing to fear regarding the false story
of the Bishop’s intervention concocted by Mr. Balachandra
Kumar.

8. Mr. Balachandra Kumar knew that the 1st petitioner had

been falsely implicated in Crime No. 297/2017 at the
instance of Mrs. B. Sandhya ADGP. On 15.04.2021 Mr.
Balachandra Kumar sent message to the 1st petitioner by
WhatsApp stating that the he has been calling her but she
is not attending his call and the 1st petitioner has time only
 11

till she attends his call. The screenshots of his phone

showing calls made by him to Mrs. B. Sandhya were sent
by him to the 1st petitioner.

9. The story narrated by Mr. Balachandra Kumar in Annexure

G is a story that was developed for him by the defacto
complainant and his team under the guidance of Mrs. B.
Sandhya. Annexure H and I statements contains further
concocted allegations created by the team. The petitioners
have come to know recently that Mr. Balachandra Kumar
has collected money from various persons under the
pretext he would give them roles to play in his movie and
making similar fraudulent misrepresentations. It is solely
on the basis of false and fabricated allegations raised
through Mr. Balachandra Kumar, a person of no repute or
integrity, that Crime No. 6/2022 of Crime Branch Police
Station has been registered.

10. In Annexure G complaint Mr. Balachandra Kumar has

claimed that he sent a WhatsApp message to the 1st
petitioner on 09.04.2021 stating about cancellation of his
bail and he has not attended the calls of the 1st petitioner
or replied to the 1st petitioner thereafter and that he had
sent a WhatsApp message to the 1st petitioner on
14.04.2021 stating that he is withdrawing from the movie
as per his own decision (paragraphs 24 and 25). This is
false. There was WhatsApp chat between Mr. Balachandra
 12

Kumar and the 1st petitioner on 10.04.2021,11.04.2021,

12.04.2021 and 13.04.2021. Mr. Balachandra Kumar has
suppressed the details of those WhatsApp conversation as
that would expose falsity of the story concocted by him. It
is only when Mr. Balachandra Kumar’s attempt to threaten
the 1st petitioner and make him announce movie with him
or to intervene with his creditors failed that he sent
WhatsApp message to the 1st petitioner that he was
withdrawing from the movie project. During the period
from 2014 to 2021 Mr. Balachandra Kumar has taken a
sum of about Rs. 10,00,000/- from petitioners 1 and 3
pleading financial needs and if he was actually withdrawing
from the project he was bound to refund the money.

11. The story concocted in Annexure G and the improvements

made as per Annexure H and I are stories developed using
the materials that have come out in the trial of S.C. No.
118/2018 and the baseless allegations raised by the
prosecution during the trial. The creation of such stories
exposes the malicious persecution of the 1st petitioner, his
family members and his friends by Mrs. B. Sandhya, ADGP
and team of Police officers subservient to her who are
willing to do any malicious act at her command without
scant respect for the law.

12. The timing of the revelations by Mr. Balachandra Kumar is

noteworthy. His revelations about an alleged incident of
 13

15.11.2017 was raised after 4 years and 40 days in

Reporter TV channel on 25.12.2021 at the time when the
defacto complainant – the 2nd Investigating Officer – was
the only material witness remaining for the prosecution
and his examination was scheduled from 29.12.2021. Had
there been any bonafides in the allegations of Mr.
Balachandra Kumar he would have raised them earlier
itself and not on the eve of the examination of the defacto
complainant before the Court. The circumstances establish
that Mr. Balachandra Kumar is a hired witness for the
defacto complainant, brought into picture through wide
publicity so as to raise a totally new and fabricated story
and thereby derail the Sessions trial that was nearing
completion and in which false and fabricated allegations
raised by the defacto complainant against the 1st petitioner
stood exposed.

13. The First Informant knowing fully well that he has to mount
the witness box on 29.12.2021 as CW355, wanting to
prevent or stall it by any means, made arrangements with
Mr. Balachandra Kumar to forward antedated Annexure-G
complaint dated 22.11.2021, to the SHO, Nedumbassery in
the evening of 28.12.2021, and got it transmitted by the
SHO to him that day itself. It is on the basis of the said
complaint, the defacto complainant managed to get the
further trial and his examination stopped by filing a report
 14

u/s.173(8) Cr.P.C. Annexure R1(a) stating that fresh

evidence has been revealed from the complaint of
Balachandra Kumar.
Mrs. B. Sandhya, ADGP
14. The investigation of Crime No. 297/ 2017 of
Nedumbasserry Police Station was under the direct
supervision of Mrs. B. Sandhya, ADGP. It is heard that the
said officer has track record of fabricating evidence and
implicating innocent persons as accused so as to gain
name and fame. In Annexure G complaint paragraph 26 of
Mr. Balachandra Kumar has stated that he repeatedly
phoned Mrs. B. Sandhya in April 2021 but she did not
respond. Such a statement is falsely made by him so as to
cover up the role of the said officer in the hiring him to
raise false allegations to disrupt the ongoing trial of S.C
No. 118/2018 and persecute the petitioners and other
close associates of the 1st petitioner.
Digital Evidence claimed by the Prosecution
15. The Investigating Officer has averred that disclosures of

Mrs. Balachandra Kumar are supported by digital evidence.

In Annexure G complaint Mr. Balachandra Kumar has
stated that he has intermittently recorded conversations
that took place on 15.11.2017. However a reading of
Annexure G complaint reveals that what Mr. Balachandra
Kumar is relying upon are 18 ‘voice clips’. There is no
mention in that complaint about the device allegedly used
 15

by him. No normal person would record voice clips like this,

that too in a meeting of persons known to each other. In
Annexure -H Mr. Balachandra Kumar has claimed that he
had recorded the conversation in a Samsung tab and in
Annexure-I he claims that he had copied the alleged
conversation from the said tab to a laptop and that said
Samsung tab became unfit for use. Hence the instrument
which is claimed to have been used for recording is not
available and the authenticity of the claim that it was
recorded on 15.11.2017 or the integrity of its contents
cannot be verified. The digital evidence claimed are
fragments of speech or broken words whose time of
recording, sequence of recording, manner of recording etc.
are uncertain. Some of these voice clips have been
telecasted through the media and its contents reveal that
they are fabricated and/ or fragmented pieces of recording
deliberately structured together in a particular manner. All
are fabricated. In fact these voice clips also do not contain
any conversation that indicates a conspiracy and even the
recital quoted in Annexure F FIR ‘േസാജൻ, സുദർശൻ, സ ,

ൈബജു പൗേലാസ്, പിെ നീ, പിെ ഇതിൽ എെ േദഹ ്

ൈക വ സുദർശെ ൈക െവ ണം’. The voice clips

created by Mr. Balachandra Kumar is collage of materials

created, fabricated and placed together and not any
recording of conversation in a normal course nor is it
credible or reliable material. The claim of the prosecution
 16

that there is digital evidence to render assurance about the

veracity of the allegations is baseless. All what is alleged
by Mr. Balachandra Kumar in Annexure G that the 1st
petitioner stated on seeing the old visuals of his arrest in
the YouTube that five Police officers will suffer the
consequences. The 1st petitioner has not made such a
statement at any time to the best of his recollection. If at
all he has made such a statement the same can only be out
of his anguish and it is the natural utterance of an innocent
person who was falsely implicated in a crime and arrested.
Such a statement does not amount to offence of abetment
of an offence or conspiracy. Annexure-H, the first
statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C also contains the same version.
There is no explanation for the inordinate delay of more
than 4 years and one month taken by Mr. Balachandra
Kumar to file a complaint to the Police and there is no
explanation for the delay on the part of the defacto
complainant from 28.12.2021 to 09.01.2022 to give
Annexure-R1(d) letter to the ADGP for registering the FIR.
Allegation in Crime No. 297/2017
16. The implication of an innocent person like the petitioner in
the said Crime on the absurd and ridiculous allegation of
committing conspiracy is unparalleled in the history of any
country following the rule of law. Equally unparalleled is the
malicious conduct of the defacto complainant and his
team who seem to have made a vow that they will not
 17

allow the Judge who has conducted the trial from the very
beginning to deliver judgment. To malign and pollute the
stream of justice they have hired services of willing media
persons to spread tutored fabricated allegations. The
defacto complainant, a junior Circle Inspector purportedly
conducted further investigation of the case after a full
fledged investigation was conducted by a Special
Investigation team lead by the DYSP had filed Final Report
and he joined hands with the alleged perpetuator of the
Crime and relying upon the unreliable confession of the
perpetuator of the Crime made the 1st petitioner, who is no
manner connected with the alleged incident, accused in the
case branding him as the conspirator. The defacto
complainant had proceeded to array seven more accused
including the 1st petitioner when he filed second Final
Report. The second final report as against two of the
additional accused has been quashed by this Hon’ble
Court. Three of the additional accused, which includes one
Police officer and two habitual criminals, have been made
approvers solely to fabricate evidence against the 1st
petitioner with the alleged perpetuator of the crime. The
defacto complainant in Crime No. 6/2022 is the Police
officer who has done investigation in such a perverted
manner which is unprecedented in history. Crime
No.6/2022 has been got registered as a ploy for
manipulating evidence in S.C.No.118 of 2018, in which 202
 18

witness have been examined, by taking the petitioners,

especially the 1st petitioner into custody and parading him
in front of the public and media as was done during the
investigation in Crime No.297/2017, about 5 years back, by
the defacto complainant.
Allegations in Crime No. 6/2022
17. It is from the confessional statements of A1 Pulsar Suni,
10th accused turned approver PW176 Vishnu Aravind
(jailmate of A1), the original additional 10th accused
turned approver PW121 Vipinlal (another jailmate of A1),
PW135 Jinson (another jailmate of A1) that the defacto
complainant alleged criminal conspiracy between the 1st
petitioner and the 1st accused in S.C. No. 118/2018. Even
those witnesses did not tell the story the 1st accused had
met Mr. Balachandra Kumar in the house of the 1st
petitioner or that money was paid by the 1st petitioner to
the 1st accused on 26.12.2016. The 1st accused never had
a story of interaction with Mr. Balachandra Kumar or 2nd
petitioner at any time or going to the house of the 1st
petitioner. The Prosecution story in Crime No. 297/2017
based on the alleged confession of the 1st accused was
that he had met the 1st petitioner lastly on 14.11.2016 and
that money was paid by the 1st petitioner to the 1st
accused in November 2015. The allegation raised by Mr.
Balachandra Kumar is a totally new story concocted him
as a hired witness for the defacto complainant and his
 19

team. The improvements and additions made even from

Annexure G written complaint while creating Annexure H
and the further improvements and additions while
creating Annexure I statement demolishes the credibility
of the person giving the complaint and the statements. It
is submitted that the additional allegations in Annexure H
and I are fabricated by the defacto complainant with the
sole intention of getting another crime registered against
the 1st petitioner and persons close to him.

18. The allegations in Annexure G, H and I even in their entirety

do not make out the offence of criminal conspiracy or
abetment to commit any offence or concealing design to
commit offence or criminal intimidation. The filing of
Annexure R1(f) incorporating 120B (1) IPC for the
commission of 302 IPC is not based on any further
material collected during the investigation but it is the
result of the fertile imagination of the Investigation Officer
running wild and a desperate attempt to get over the
inherent fallacy in the offences alleged to have been
committed for the registration of the crime.
Annexure R1(a)
19. Annexure R1(a) is the list of petitions filed by the 1st
petitioner before the Committal Court, Sessions Court, the
High Court and the Supreme Court of India during the
period from 2017 to 2022. The filing of 57 petitions during
 20

the course of a malicious prosecution lasting nearly 4 ½

years is not a matter meriting even a mention. That has no
relevance to the anticipatory bail application. Among the
57 petitions 25 petitions were allowed and 8 petitions are
pending. 14 petitions were closed as the reliefs sought for
in those petitions were obtained by the petitioner during
the pendency of these applications. Only 11 petitions filed
by the petitioner have been dismissed. Further the reliefs
sought for in most of the dismissed petitions were granted
to the 1st petitioner from the higher Court. The dismissal of
the petitions mentioned in Serial No.4 and Serial No. 20
was set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by
allowing Serial No. 1 Appeal. After the dismissal of Serial
Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29 bail applications, this Hon’ble
Court granted bail to the petitioner in Serial No. 22 Bail
Application. As against the dismissal of serial No. 3
petition the appeal is pending as Serial No. 2. Only 4
petitions mentioned in Serial Nos. 7, 31, 32 and 43 were
finally decided against the petitioner out of the 57 petitions
filed by him. From this itself the bonafides in the petitions
is crystal clear. None of the petitions filed by the 1st
petitioner resulted in the trial of the case being affected,
except during the period which the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India directed not to proceed further.

20. On the other hand the prosecution has resorted to all

 21

means possible to obstruct the trial. Soon after the case

was committed to the Principal Sessions Court the defacto
complainant came with a petition to transfer the case to a
Women Judge and that petition was dismissed as no
women Judge was available in the district to conduct the
trial. The defacto complainant approached the Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala and on her application the case was
transferred to the Addl. Special Sessions Judge (SPE/CBI)
III, Ernakulam. The prayer of the defacto complainant was
supported by the prosecution that resulted in the trial of the
case not proceeding for nearly an year. During the trial of
the case the Special Public Prosecutor walked out of the
Court on 14.10.2020 and the examination of witnesses
could not be conducted thereafter though witnesses were
scheduled for examination till 02.11.2020. The defacto
complainant as well as the investigating agency moved
this Hon’ble Court for transfer of the case to some other
court making false and imaginary allegations against the
Presiding Officer. Those transfer petitions were dismissed
by this Hon’ble Court on 20.11.2020. At that time the
Special Public Prosecutor tendered resignation and the
investigating agency approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India seeking for transfer of the case with the
further allegation that the Special Public Prosecutor had to
resign due to the hostile conduct of the Judge. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court dismissed that Transfer Petition and finally
 22

the trial recommenced on 20.01.2021. Thereafter the

prosecution delayed the production of their approvers
PW121 Vipinlal and PW 176 Vishnu on the dates they were
scheduled for examination thereby resulting in the trial
being held up. Finally when the last witness for the
prosecution was to be examined on 29.12.2021 the claim
for stopping the trial under the guise of further
investigation was made. Moreover the Special Public
Prosecutor conducting the case submitted his resignation
on 29.12.2021 so as to ensure that the Court is unable to
proceed with the trial. The delay tactics to stall the trial of
the case and devious means to prejudice the Court and the
public against the 1st petitioner has been persistently
resorted to by the investigating agency.
Annexure R1(b) and R1(c) FIRs.
21. These FIRs were registered in September and November of
2020 raising the allegation that there was attempt to
influence the jailmates of A1 Pulsar Suni in January 2020.
Both these FIRs were registered by persons who are
habitual offenders and jailmates of A1 Pulsar Suni so as to
create the false impression that the 1st petitioner has been
attempting to influence witnesses. The investigation of
both these cases were transferred to the Crime Branch,
where the defacto complainant is posted. In spite of the
continued investigation for over an year, no material could
be fabricated to make the 1st petitioner an accused in
 23

those cases, eventhough the widely publicized allegations

raised in both those cases resulted in prejudicing the mind
of the public against the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that
the registration of Annexure R1(b) and R1(c) FIRs and the
resignation of Special Public Prosecutor during
September–November 2020 is replicated now also with the
resignation of the Special Public Prosecutor on 29.12.2021
and the registration of Annexure F FIR on 09.01.2022. All
these are attempts by the prosecution to disrupt the
administration of justice.
Hostile witnesses in S.C. No. 118/2018
22. Out of 202 witness examined by the prosecution
permission was sought to cross examine 20 witnesses. Of
these 20 witnesses 6 are family members of the 1st
petitioner – 2nd and 3rd petitioners, his wife, his sister, his
wife’s brother and his wife’s sister-in-law. 5
actors/actresses and one film director, who are also
friends of the 1st petitioner are among the witnesses cross
examined by the prosecution. The driver of the 1st
petitioner and two employees of his brother-in-law were
also cross examined by the prosecution. The family doctor
of the 1st petitioner and his brother, who is the manager of
the hospital, are also witnesses cross examined by the
prosecution. The wife of the 10th accused and a friend of
the 1st accused were also cross examined by the
prosecution. The manager of a hotel, a witness of no
 24

significance was also cross examined. None of these

witnesses have any knowledge about the crime or the
conspiracy involving the 1st petitioner alleged in S.C. No.
118/2018 and none of them would have been made
witnesses for the prosecution had there been a fair final
report. The aforesaid 20 persons were arrayed as
witnesses without any justification and the prosecution
declaring them hostile has no significance at all except for
the purpose of media trial engineered by the prosecution
against the 1st petitioner.

23. The statements of 26 witnesses were recorded under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 297/2017. Even the
hostile witnesses have not contradicted statements, if any
made by them under S. 164 of Cr.P.C. On the other hand
the loyal witnesses for the prosecution including approver
PW 121 Vipinlal, PW 165 Aneesh (Policeman), approver PW
176 Vishnu have disowned and contradicted the
statements made by them under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and
under Section 306(4) of Cr.P.C. PW 195 Binoy, Assistant
Commissioner of Police, whose statement was recorded
by the Investigating Officer has disowned material portions
of his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and 4
contradictions have been marked. However he was not
declared hostile by the Prosecution as his false changed
testimony was in tune with the present fabricated evidence
 25

in the case. PW 197 Radhamani who recorded the FIS of

PW1 has disowned a portion of her statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and one contradiction was marked, but
she too is a loyal witness of the prosecution. The number
of witnesses declared hostile by the prosecution has no
relevance at all as it is the prerogative of the prosecution to
seek for cross-examination of any witness.

Recovery effected in Crime No. 6/2022

24. The statement that 19 items were seized from houses of
petitioners 1 and 2 is yet another irrelevant claim. It is
without any necessity or justification that the well
published media-covered search of the houses of the 1st
and 2nd petitioner as well as their office was conducted.
There was no necessity for effecting the large scale
seizure from these places and the articles seized have no
relevance to the alleged crime.
Necessity for grant of Anticipatory Bail
25. The registration of Crime No. 6/2022 that too by the Crime
Branch, is vindictive, malicious and an affront to the rule of
law and administration of justice by the Courts established
by law. The attempt is to portray the 1st petitioner and his
associates as criminals in the mind of people and to
sabotage the trial of the Sessions case which was nearing
completion on the apprehension of the investigating
agency and their fabricated case against the 1st petitioner
 26

will be exposed in Court. Such unlawful and high handed

conduct by the team of Police officers supervised by the
ADGP cannot be permitted and innocent petitioners cannot
be incarcerated on ridiculous and fabricated allegations.

26. The petitioners are persons having no criminal antecedents

even though the 1st petitioner is an accused in S.C. No.
118/2018 based on false and fabricated allegations. The
petitioners have co-operated with the investigation and the
residences of all the petitioners have been searched. There
are no circumstances warranting custodial interrogation of
the petitioner.

27. Mr. Balachandra Kumar nor anyone else has raised the
allegation that any overt act has been committed by the
petitioners or that their alleged criminal conspiracy had
proceeded further after the alleged conversation on
15.11.2017. Custodial interrogation is not at all necessary
in the nature of the allegation and there is nothing to be
recovered at the instance of the petitioners by keeping
them in custody. Hence there are no circumstances
warranting any custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

28. It is respectfully submitted that the whole allegation in the

FIR projected against the petitioners being absolutely false
and nonexistent the petitioners are not having any
information to be passed on to the investigating officers
 27

registering the offences alleged and accusation made by

the prosecution against the petitioners. The petitioners
genuinely apprehend that in the event of their arrest, they
will be detained illegally and subjected to harassment and
humiliation.
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2022.

Philip T. Varghese
Counsel for the petitioners
 28

Filed on : 22.01.2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT

ERNAKULAM

B.A No. 248 of 2022

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep

and others : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Kerala : Respondent

REPLY FILED BY PETITIONER TO THE STATEMENT FILED

BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,
ERNAKULAM

M/s B. Raman Pillai Associates

PHILIP T. VARGHESE K/576/1991
THOMAS.T. VARGHESE K/516/1995
ACHU SHUBHA ABRAHAM K/1758/1999
SUJESH MENON V.V K/796/2000
LITHA. V.T K/278/2006
MONISHA K.R K/915/2016
NITYA. R K/138/2019
 29

Counsel for Petitioners