Why Was Ex-MLA and Filmmaker Kunju Muhammed Arrested?
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
Thiruvananthapuram, December 24 (NationPress) Renowned filmmaker and former Left legislator P.T. Kunju Muhammed has been taken into custody and later released on bail due to a sexual assault allegation, adhering to the stipulations outlined in the anticipatory bail issued by the court.
The arrest and subsequent release occurred on Tuesday, following a directive from the Thiruvananthapuram Seventh Additional Sessions Court on December 20, which had granted anticipatory bail to Kunju Muhammed under strict conditions.
The bail order explicitly indicated that if law enforcement deemed it necessary to detain the accused during the investigation, he should be immediately released on bail post-arrest.
This ruling was made after the court considered comprehensive arguments from both the prosecution and the defense earlier that week.
The police initiated the case on December 8, based on a complaint lodged by a woman to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27.
The complainant has accused Kunju Muhammed of sexually assaulting her during his tenure as the chairman of the jury for the International Film Festival of Kerala (IFFK), a role regarded as prestigious in the Malayalam film sector.
The prosecution contends that the accused exploited his influence and public position to perpetrate the sexual assault.
In opposition to the bail request, the prosecution maintained that the gravity of the accusations, along with the accused's social status, justified a stringent response.
The police informed the court that their investigation revealed the accused had summoned the complainant to a room, where he allegedly restrained her and committed the assault.
A comprehensive case diary and investigation report were submitted to the court to support these claims.
Conversely, the defense challenged the validity of the complaint, citing a purported delay in reporting the incident.
The defense argued that the event was said to have taken place on November 6, while the complaint was filed on November 27.
In response, the prosecution clarified that the delay was attributed to health issues experienced by the complainant, asserting that such delays are not uncommon in sexual assault cases.