Accused Martin Antony claims plot to trap actor Dileep

Kochi: Martin Antony, the second accused in the actor abduction case, on Wednesday claimed a ploy by a section in the film industry to trap actor Dileep in the case. The actor is the eighth-accused in the case.

While being taken to the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court in the morning, the former driver of the victim told reporters that Dileep was done in by a plot conceived by a few persons including the latter’s ex-wife Manju Warrier.

“It was a plot by Manju Warrier, Ramya Nambeesan, Lal and Shrikumar Menon. I will reveal the truth, I have more to disclose…I have informed the court everything,” Martin told reporters outside the court.

Martin was the first person to be arrested in the case. He, according to police, was acting in connivance with prime accused Pulsar Suni to carry out the crime on February 16, 2017. Actor Dileep is facing conspiracy charges.

The court, while considering pleas by both sides ahead of actual trial in the case, directed the prosecution to file a report on details of evidences that can be provided to the accused and to state reasons, in case any document could not be provided.

The court posted the case for April 11, when it will consider all petitions including bail applications of the accused, discharge petitions of the advocates accused in the case and a petition by a lawyer appearing for the survivor to join the prosecution.

While considering bail plea of the prime accused, the court observed that the same could not be considered before examination of the material witnesses in the case citing the high court order which denied bail to the accused.

HC accepts Dileep’s demand to see visuals
The High Court on Wednesday accepted the petition filed by actor Dileep seeking the visuals of the attack against the woman actor. Dileep’s counsel argued that that the visuals are given to the advocates and not the accused. Dileep’s counsel also argued that the visuals submitted by the investigation were doctored and his client has the right to see the evidence produced against him.

The counsel contended that visual evidence are given to the accused. This happened even in the Santhosh Madhavan case. However, the director general of prosecution denied the contention that memory card has been tampered with and that the sound of woman is heard in the visual. 

Stating that the Dileep’s petition is a ploy to prolong the commencement of trial in the case, the prosecution said Dilpee’s counsel had seen the visuals at least eight times.