JUDGMENT : 1. The eleventh accused in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police station for offences punishable under sections 120(B), 342, 366, 376(D), 411, 506(1), 201, 212 & 34 IPC and sections 66(E) & 67(A) of the Information Technology Act 2008, seeks bail. 2. The prosecution case in a nut shell is as follows: The petitioner is a prominent Malayalam film actor. The victim involved is also a well known film actress. The petitioner maintained enmity towards the victim, on a belief that, she was instrumental in the disruption of his matrimonial relationship, which led to judicial separation. To wreak vengeance, he allegedly conspired with the first accused, who was a person with criminal track record and a person occasionally employed in film units as a driver, to abduct the victim and to record her nude videographs. The first accused was allegedly offered a sum of Rupees One and Half Crores and an advance of Rs.10,000/- was allegedly paid. In execution of the above conspiracy, on 17/2/2017, at about 7 p.m., while the victim was travelling in a vehicle along the National High Way, the first accused, with the aid of accused 2 to 6, abducted her. The first accused sexually abused her in the moving car and simultaneously videographed it on his mobile. She was released at around 11 P.M. FIS was laid on the same night and crime was registered. In the course of investigation, seven accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, final report was laid on 17/4/2017. Main accused Nos.1 to 6 are still in custody. It appears that, the complicity of the petitioner herein was not revealed at that time and the investigation into the larger conspiracy continued. The petitioner herein was questioned and thereafter arrested on 10/7/2017. He is in custody. 3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Director General of Prosecution in extenso. Perused the case diary. 4. The earlier bail application filed by the petitioner as BA No.5098/2017 was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 24/7/2017. This Court had noted that, there were prima facie materials to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy, the allegation raised was serious, the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the possibility of other persons being implicated could not be ruled out. This Court had noted that, there were prima facie materials to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy, the allegation raised was serious, the investigation was at a crucial stage and that the possibility of other persons being implicated could not be ruled out. It was also noted that, one Appunni, stated to be the driver of the petitioner, was absconding. The mobile phone used for recording the sexual abuse and the original memory card in which it was recorded were not recovered, which posed a potential threat to the victim and the investigation. Another observation was that, the petitioner being a prominent film actor, distributor and producer of films, and also a theater owner, must be wielding considerable command in the film industry and possibility of the petitioner influencing or threatening the witnesses, who were also mainly from the same industry, could not be ruled out. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that, at the time of filing the final report, there was not even an allegation that the petitioner was involved. It was contended that, there was absolutely no material to connect the petitioner herein with the first accused or his involvement in any conspiracy and that he himself was a prey to a conspiracy hatched by few persons enimical to him, to defeat and destroy him. According to the learned senior counsel, it was preposterous to contend that, conspiracy was hatched on various dates commencing from 2013, but executed only in 2017. The learned senior counsel further submitted that, petitioner had submitted a complaint on 20/4/2017 to the Director General of Police alleging that, some one, on behalf of the first accused, was blackmailing him for financial gain by threatening to falsely implicate him in the present crime. But, this complaint was not properly considered by the police. 6. According to the learned senior counsel, in the FI Statement itself, it was recorded that the first accused had disclosed that he was acting on a quotation. However, the police did not conduct any investigation in that angle. On the other hand, now they are relying solely on the alleged confession made by the first accused, who is a known criminal, to implicate the petitioner in the case. However, the police did not conduct any investigation in that angle. On the other hand, now they are relying solely on the alleged confession made by the first accused, who is a known criminal, to implicate the petitioner in the case. Learned counsel, relying on the decisions reported in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar(AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1184) and Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2005 Supreme Court 716) contended that the confession of the co-accused cannot be the sole basis for incriminating another. 7. The learned Director General of Prosecution answering this, contended that the prosecution is not relying on the confession alone. According to the prosecution, initial conspiracy was hatched in a hotel at Ernakulam in 2013. Thereafter, it was reiterated at four other specified places, during the period April 2013 to November 2016. It was contended that, the mobile phones of the accused Nos. 1 and 11, were within the same tower location of the above places during the relevant time. It was claimed that, apart from the above, prosecution was relying on the records and registers in the hotel at Ernakulam, to prove that a room was booked in the name of the 11th accused during the relevant time. Documentary and oral evidence are also relied on by the prosecution to support the presence of both the above accused in those various locations. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that, the prosecution is further relying on Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of a witness, who claims to have seen both the accused at one place and the statement of another witness who claims to have seen both at another place. Hence, according to the prosecution, it relies on the oral and documentary evidence unearthed in the course of investigation, based on confession. 8. The prosecution claimed that, immediately after the incident, attempts were made by the first accused to contact the petitioner herein, through others. It is alleged that, even after lodged in jail, he had tried to contact the petitioner through the close associates and other sources using mobile phone and land line, and also through others. According to the prosecution, the tower location, the CCTV footage and oral evidence are available to show that the letter forwarded to Appunni was got prepared by the first accused inside the jail itself. According to the prosecution, the tower location, the CCTV footage and oral evidence are available to show that the letter forwarded to Appunni was got prepared by the first accused inside the jail itself. Details of various calls made by the first and 9th accused show the continuous phone calls made to few doubtful persons, some persons connected with the petitioner and inter se calls among them. Details of several phone calls are also unearthed by the investigating agency with tower location of each person. The prosecution also contends that the conspiracy was disclosed by the first accused to few persons, who have been questioned. Investigating agency is now projecting the version of a witness, who has disclosed that, the first accused had revealed the details of conspiracy to him. Relying on the above inputs, the learned Director General of Prosecution contended that prima facie materials to connect the petitioner with the conspiracy are available. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, one of the grounds for declining bail earlier was that Appunni was absconding. It was submitted that, subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail application, Appunni had appeared before the investigating agency and was questioned thoroughly. Further, accused 12 and 13 to whom the original mobile and memory card were allegedly entrusted were also questioned. It was revealed that, those material objects were destroyed. It was hence contended that, the mobile and memory card are irrevocably lost and no purpose would be served by further investigation on it. On the basis of these two facts, it was argued by the learned senior counsel that there was substantial change of circumstance and consequently further custody of the accused was not warranted. 10. According to the learned Director General of Prosecution, though Appunni was interrogated, he did not co- operate with the investigation. It was further stated that, there are some materials disclosing that mobile and memory card were entrusted by the first accused to Accused No.12. Both Accused Nos. 12 and 13, who were questioned have taken the stand that the mobile phone was destroyed. Original memory card is still not recovered. According to the Director General of Prosecution, this is not believed by the investigating agency and that still they are attempting to unearth the above material objects, which are crucial. The above facts indicate that, the investigation is still progressing. Original memory card is still not recovered. According to the Director General of Prosecution, this is not believed by the investigating agency and that still they are attempting to unearth the above material objects, which are crucial. The above facts indicate that, the investigation is still progressing. There does not appear to be any substantial change of circumstance. Having considered the entire facts, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Bail application fails and is dismissed.