IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAYOF JULY2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 5098 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 297/2017 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
P.GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.G. PADMANABHA PILLAI,
PADMASAROVARAM HOUSE, KOTTARAKADAVU ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI,
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH,
SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN),
SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.C. SREEDHARAN NAIR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-07-2017, THE COURT ON 24/07/2017 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
SUNIL THOMAS,J
------------------------
B.A.No..5098 of 2017
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July 2017
O R D E R
The 11th 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,is the
petitioner herein.
2. The crux of the prosecution case, as is discernible
from the available records, is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is a prominent Malayalam cine
artist, having acted in several films in the main role. The
victim is an unmarried, well known cine actress, who has
several films to her credit. The petitioner herein had married
a leading actress and a child was born in the matrimonial
relationship. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose in
their family, ultimately leading to a judicial separation. The
petitioner herein suspected that, the victim herein, who was a
close friend of his erstwhile wife, was instrumental in the
disruption of his matrimonial life. To wreak vengeance, he
allegedly conspired with the first accused, to abduct the
victim and to take her nude photographs, on an offer that, the
BA No.5098/2017 2
first accused would be paid Rupees One and Half Crores. The
first accused was a driver, who used to get associated with
film production units, and had a criminal track record.
4. On 17/2/2017, at about 7 p.m., the victim started from
her house at Thrissur to proceed to Cochin, in a Mahendra
XUV.vehicle, sent to her by the film production unit, to join
the work in a film. The vehicle proceeded along the National
Highway. The second accused was the driver of that
vehicle,who was a stranger to the victim. It is alleged that,
the first accused and his co-accused waited in a van near the
Airport Junction and when the vehicle of the victim reached
the spot, the first accused stage managed a fake accident, by
hitting the van on the rear side of the XUV. Thereafter, third,
fourth and sixth accused forcefully entered into the vehicle
and wrongfully confined the victim to the rear seat. They
drove the vehicle towards the Kochi city, followed by the van
driven by the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused
entered the vehicle and sexually molested her in the moving
vehicle. While she was being sexually abused, first accused
simultaneously video graphed with his mobile phone the entire
incident, with close shots of the body of the helpless victim.
In the course of the sexual act, he had directed her to co-
BA No.5098/2017 3
operate with him and divulged that, it was done by him on a
quotation entrusted to him, by another person. The ordeal of
the victim continued upto 11 p.m., in spite of her persistent
plea for release. She was thereafter left off by the main
accused. The second accused driver took the mentally
shattered victim to the house of a film director, to whom she
revealed the entire episode. Immediately, the matter was
informed to the police.
5. FIS of the victim was recorded on 18/2/2017 at 3
a.m.and she underwent medical examination. Investigation
commenced. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.was
also recorded before the Magistrate. It emerges that, in the
course of the incident, the victim had identified the first
accused, who had earlier driven her car while she was on a
film shooting at Goa. In the course of investigation, the driver
was arrested, which ultimately led to the arrest of seven
persons. Arraying them as accused, final report was laid on
17/4/2017. Accused 1 to 6 were the persons who were
involved in the main crime and seventh accused was charged
with offence of harbouring the accused.
6. In the final report, it was clarified that, an advocate
was also involved in the crime, against whom a separate
BA No.5098/2017 4
charge sheet was proposed to be filed. The right of the
investigating agency to investigate into the larger conspiracy
was also reserved. The matter is now pending as CP
No.17/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly. The investigation into the conspiracy, however,
continued. The involvement of the petitioner herein was not
revealed at that time.
7. In the meanwhile, on 22/4/2017, the petitioner herein
submitted a written complaint dated 20/4/2017, to the
Director General of Police, alleging that, few social media
groups and unknown sources were trying to defame him and
harass him in connection with the above incident involving
the film actress. It was stated that, his friend Nadirshah had
received a telephone call from one Vishnu, claimed to be on
behalf of the first accused, seeking financial help, with a
threat that in case of failure, to connect the petitioner herein
with the above case. Further, on 18/4/2017, his driver
Appunni had received a letter by Whats up, allegedly written
by the first accused addressed to the petitioner, demanding
two crores of Rupees from him and in case of failure, to spoil
the career of the petitioner.
8. In the course of investigation, the petitioner herein,
BA No.5098/2017 5
Nadirshah and Appunni were questioned in detail. Thereafter,
the petitioner was arrested on 10/7/2017 on an allegation that,
the petitioner had engaged the first accused to take nude
photographs of the victim on an offer to pay Rupees One and
Half Crores. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was allegedly paid by the
petitioner as advance in December,2015. Petitioner is in
custody since the date of arrest. The petitioner, contending
that he is absolutely innocent and is sought to be roped in the
crime consequent to a deep rooted conspiracy, seeks bail.
9. It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that, none of the 19 circumstances mentioned in
the remand report was connected with the petitioner. There
was not even an iota of evidence to connect him with the
incident, much less, with any part of the conspiracy. It was
further contended that, even assuming that the first accused
was available at places where the petitioner, himself being a
popular artist, was present, that by itself is not sufficient to
establish conspiracy. It was further contented that, the
petitioner was questioned initially for 13 hours and
subsequently for ten hours, prior to his arrest. Thereafter, he
was given the police custody for three days. Hence, the
petitioner is not required any further, for the purpose of
BA No.5098/2017 6
investigation and consequently his further custody is not
justified, contented the learned senior counsel.
10. Per contra, learned Director General of Prosecution
contended that, the petitioner is the king pin of the crime. He
had given quotation to the first accused, a known criminal, to
commit the nefarious crime. It was contended that,
engaging criminals on quotation for committing sexual abuse
on a victim to wreak vengeance was unheard of. It was
further contended that, there were cogent,clinging, direct,
indirect, circumstantial and scientific evidence to establish
that the petitioner had conspired with the first accused .
11.No doubt, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and direct
evidence is rarely available. The prosecution is trying to allege
the conspiracy and to connect the petitioner herein with the
case, on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It emerges
that, investigating agency is proceeding on a premise that, the
petitioner herein had a definite stand that he did not know the
first accused and never had occasion to meet him. Another
premise on which the investigation proceeded was that, the
complaint dated 20/4/2017 submitted by the petitioner to the
Director General of Police was a clever move to preempt a
possible revelation of the involvement of the petitioner in the
BA No.5098/2017 7
crime, by the first accused. The learned Director General of
Prosecution relied on the materials available on record to
contend that investigation has gathered sufficient materials to
establish the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy. They fall
into two categories. Those materials prior to the actual
commission of offence and the conduct of the accused
subsequent to the commission of offence.
12. Definitely, the incident that happened on 17/2/2017
is very serious. A young actress was abducted in the busiest
National Highway, taken through the city for about two and
half hours, subjected to the shocking ordeal of sexual assault
and video graphed, inside a moving car. The victim had
identified the first accused in the car itself. At the initial
stage itself, matter was reported to the police and the second
accused driver whose conduct appeared to be doubtful was
arrested, immediately after the incident. The commission of
crime is so cruel and diabolic and liable to shake the
conscience of the society.
13. The investigation agency alleges that, the petitioner
herein had a definite motive to commit crime. It was alleged
that, the petitioner herein suspected that the victim was
instrumental for the disruption of his matrimonial
BA No.5098/2017 8
relationship. The petitioner believed that, the victim had
spoiled his family life by conveying information about the
petitioner to the former wife. There are enough materials
available on record to show that, the relationship of petitioner
with victim was strained. There are versions of few persons
that, the victim lost few opportunities to act in films
thereafter, which affected her professional career also.
14. The conspiracy angle is sought to be established by
alleging that the petitioner herein had met the first accused at
five different specified places, where the conspiracy was
hatched. One was in a hotel wherein the petitioner allegedly
instructed the first accused to commit the act and offered to
pay the huge amount. Hotel records are relied on by the
prosecution to establish that room was booked in the name of
the petitioner herein. The presence of both the petitioner and
the accused at all the five places at the same time is sought to
be established by call record details, tower location of mobiles
or by direct oral evidence, gathered by the investigation. The
disclosure made by the first accused about the conspiracy
hatched with the petitioner, in the investigation and those
made to others have led to discovery of several crucial
materials and facts.
BA No.5098/2017 9
15. The prosecution has a case that, the tenor and tone
of the letter allegedly sent by the first accused did not
evidence that it was in the form of a threatening letter or
intended to blackmail the petitioner. Versions of some
persons, to whom first accused allegedly disclosed the
conspiracy, are available. It is on record that, after the arrest
of the first accused, a mobile phone was stealthily taken inside
the jail by first accused and he had contacted several persons.
Call details both of the above mobile phone and that from the
coin box land line provided in the jail show the continuous
phone calls made by the first accused to few doubtful
persons,some persons connected with the petitioner and inter
se calls among them. Details of several inter connected phone
calls are also unearthed by the investigating agency, with the
tower location of each person. Details of attempts made by
Vishnu to contact petitioner through few sources are also on
record. Records indicate that the first accused had written
the letter from the jail itself. Materials to indicate that,
immediately after the commission of crime, the accused along
with a co-accused had attempted to hand over the mobile and
memory card to the associates of petitioner.
16. The above facts, show that prima facie there are
BA No.5098/2017 10
materials to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the
crime. Investigation is still progressing. It is still at a crucial
stage. It was submitted by the learned Director General of
Prosecution that, the manager Appunni is absconding and the
lawyer involved has to be effectively questioned. The
possibility of implicating other persons in the crime has also
not been ruled out by the learned DGP. Investigation seems to
be progressing.
17. The case is unique, considering its seriousness,
meticulous planning, cruel nature of execution and being a
crime executed to wreak vengeance on a woman by engaging
criminals, to sexually abuse her. Courts have to be
circumspect in granting bail in such cases.
18.There is yet another major reason which prompts
rejection of bail application. The crucial material object
which is the mobile phone used for recording the sexual
assault and the memory card in which the video graphed
materials are stored have not been recovered. The memory
card is a potential threat to the life of the victim and there is
every possibility of any of the accused attempting to interfere
in the investigation and the prosecution with the memory
card.
BA No.5098/2017 11
18. The petitioner, being a noted film actor, is also
involved in the distribution and production of films and is
also owner of a theater. Definitely, he must be wielding
considerable command on the industry. Hence, the possibility
of the petitioner influencing or threatening the several
witnesses, who are also from the same industry, cannot be
ruled out.
Having considered the above facts, I feel that it is too
early at this stage to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,
bail application fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge.
Dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAYOF JULY2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 5098 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 297/2017 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
P.GOPALAKRISHNAN @ DILEEP,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.G. PADMANABHA PILLAI,
PADMASAROVARAM HOUSE, KOTTARAKADAVU ROAD,
ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADVS. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI,
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH,
SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN),
SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR.
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.C. SREEDHARAN NAIR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-07-2017, THE COURT ON 24/07/2017 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
SUNIL THOMAS,J
------------------------
B.A.No..5098 of 2017
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of July 2017
O R D E R
The 11th 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,is the
petitioner herein.
2. The crux of the prosecution case, as is discernible
from the available records, is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein is a prominent Malayalam cine
artist, having acted in several films in the main role. The
victim is an unmarried, well known cine actress, who has
several films to her credit. The petitioner herein had married
a leading actress and a child was born in the matrimonial
relationship. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose in
their family, ultimately leading to a judicial separation. The
petitioner herein suspected that, the victim herein, who was a
close friend of his erstwhile wife, was instrumental in the
disruption of his matrimonial life. To wreak vengeance, he
allegedly conspired with the first accused, to abduct the
victim and to take her nude photographs, on an offer that, the
BA No.5098/2017 2
first accused would be paid Rupees One and Half Crores. The
first accused was a driver, who used to get associated with
film production units, and had a criminal track record.
4. On 17/2/2017, at about 7 p.m., the victim started from
her house at Thrissur to proceed to Cochin, in a Mahendra
XUV.vehicle, sent to her by the film production unit, to join
the work in a film. The vehicle proceeded along the National
Highway. The second accused was the driver of that
vehicle,who was a stranger to the victim. It is alleged that,
the first accused and his co-accused waited in a van near the
Airport Junction and when the vehicle of the victim reached
the spot, the first accused stage managed a fake accident, by
hitting the van on the rear side of the XUV. Thereafter, third,
fourth and sixth accused forcefully entered into the vehicle
and wrongfully confined the victim to the rear seat. They
drove the vehicle towards the Kochi city, followed by the van
driven by the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused
entered the vehicle and sexually molested her in the moving
vehicle. While she was being sexually abused, first accused
simultaneously video graphed with his mobile phone the entire
incident, with close shots of the body of the helpless victim.
In the course of the sexual act, he had directed her to co-
BA No.5098/2017 3
operate with him and divulged that, it was done by him on a
quotation entrusted to him, by another person. The ordeal of
the victim continued upto 11 p.m., in spite of her persistent
plea for release. She was thereafter left off by the main
accused. The second accused driver took the mentally
shattered victim to the house of a film director, to whom she
revealed the entire episode. Immediately, the matter was
informed to the police.
5. FIS of the victim was recorded on 18/2/2017 at 3
a.m.and she underwent medical examination. Investigation
commenced. Her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.was
also recorded before the Magistrate. It emerges that, in the
course of the incident, the victim had identified the first
accused, who had earlier driven her car while she was on a
film shooting at Goa. In the course of investigation, the driver
was arrested, which ultimately led to the arrest of seven
persons. Arraying them as accused, final report was laid on
17/4/2017. Accused 1 to 6 were the persons who were
involved in the main crime and seventh accused was charged
with offence of harbouring the accused.
6. In the final report, it was clarified that, an advocate
was also involved in the crime, against whom a separate
BA No.5098/2017 4
charge sheet was proposed to be filed. The right of the
investigating agency to investigate into the larger conspiracy
was also reserved. The matter is now pending as CP
No.17/2017 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Angamaly. The investigation into the conspiracy, however,
continued. The involvement of the petitioner herein was not
revealed at that time.
7. In the meanwhile, on 22/4/2017, the petitioner herein
submitted a written complaint dated 20/4/2017, to the
Director General of Police, alleging that, few social media
groups and unknown sources were trying to defame him and
harass him in connection with the above incident involving
the film actress. It was stated that, his friend Nadirshah had
received a telephone call from one Vishnu, claimed to be on
behalf of the first accused, seeking financial help, with a
threat that in case of failure, to connect the petitioner herein
with the above case. Further, on 18/4/2017, his driver
Appunni had received a letter by Whats up, allegedly written
by the first accused addressed to the petitioner, demanding
two crores of Rupees from him and in case of failure, to spoil
the career of the petitioner.
8. In the course of investigation, the petitioner herein,
BA No.5098/2017 5
Nadirshah and Appunni were questioned in detail. Thereafter,
the petitioner was arrested on 10/7/2017 on an allegation that,
the petitioner had engaged the first accused to take nude
photographs of the victim on an offer to pay Rupees One and
Half Crores. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was allegedly paid by the
petitioner as advance in December,2015. Petitioner is in
custody since the date of arrest. The petitioner, contending
that he is absolutely innocent and is sought to be roped in the
crime consequent to a deep rooted conspiracy, seeks bail.
9. It was contended by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that, none of the 19 circumstances mentioned in
the remand report was connected with the petitioner. There
was not even an iota of evidence to connect him with the
incident, much less, with any part of the conspiracy. It was
further contended that, even assuming that the first accused
was available at places where the petitioner, himself being a
popular artist, was present, that by itself is not sufficient to
establish conspiracy. It was further contented that, the
petitioner was questioned initially for 13 hours and
subsequently for ten hours, prior to his arrest. Thereafter, he
was given the police custody for three days. Hence, the
petitioner is not required any further, for the purpose of
BA No.5098/2017 6
investigation and consequently his further custody is not
justified, contented the learned senior counsel.
10. Per contra, learned Director General of Prosecution
contended that, the petitioner is the king pin of the crime. He
had given quotation to the first accused, a known criminal, to
commit the nefarious crime. It was contended that,
engaging criminals on quotation for committing sexual abuse
on a victim to wreak vengeance was unheard of. It was
further contended that, there were cogent,clinging, direct,
indirect, circumstantial and scientific evidence to establish
that the petitioner had conspired with the first accused .
11.No doubt, conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and direct
evidence is rarely available. The prosecution is trying to allege
the conspiracy and to connect the petitioner herein with the
case, on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It emerges
that, investigating agency is proceeding on a premise that, the
petitioner herein had a definite stand that he did not know the
first accused and never had occasion to meet him. Another
premise on which the investigation proceeded was that, the
complaint dated 20/4/2017 submitted by the petitioner to the
Director General of Police was a clever move to preempt a
possible revelation of the involvement of the petitioner in the
BA No.5098/2017 7
crime, by the first accused. The learned Director General of
Prosecution relied on the materials available on record to
contend that investigation has gathered sufficient materials to
establish the role of the petitioner in the conspiracy. They fall
into two categories. Those materials prior to the actual
commission of offence and the conduct of the accused
subsequent to the commission of offence.
12. Definitely, the incident that happened on 17/2/2017
is very serious. A young actress was abducted in the busiest
National Highway, taken through the city for about two and
half hours, subjected to the shocking ordeal of sexual assault
and video graphed, inside a moving car. The victim had
identified the first accused in the car itself. At the initial
stage itself, matter was reported to the police and the second
accused driver whose conduct appeared to be doubtful was
arrested, immediately after the incident. The commission of
crime is so cruel and diabolic and liable to shake the
conscience of the society.
13. The investigation agency alleges that, the petitioner
herein had a definite motive to commit crime. It was alleged
that, the petitioner herein suspected that the victim was
instrumental for the disruption of his matrimonial
BA No.5098/2017 8
relationship. The petitioner believed that, the victim had
spoiled his family life by conveying information about the
petitioner to the former wife. There are enough materials
available on record to show that, the relationship of petitioner
with victim was strained. There are versions of few persons
that, the victim lost few opportunities to act in films
thereafter, which affected her professional career also.
14. The conspiracy angle is sought to be established by
alleging that the petitioner herein had met the first accused at
five different specified places, where the conspiracy was
hatched. One was in a hotel wherein the petitioner allegedly
instructed the first accused to commit the act and offered to
pay the huge amount. Hotel records are relied on by the
prosecution to establish that room was booked in the name of
the petitioner herein. The presence of both the petitioner and
the accused at all the five places at the same time is sought to
be established by call record details, tower location of mobiles
or by direct oral evidence, gathered by the investigation. The
disclosure made by the first accused about the conspiracy
hatched with the petitioner, in the investigation and those
made to others have led to discovery of several crucial
materials and facts.
BA No.5098/2017 9
15. The prosecution has a case that, the tenor and tone
of the letter allegedly sent by the first accused did not
evidence that it was in the form of a threatening letter or
intended to blackmail the petitioner. Versions of some
persons, to whom first accused allegedly disclosed the
conspiracy, are available. It is on record that, after the arrest
of the first accused, a mobile phone was stealthily taken inside
the jail by first accused and he had contacted several persons.
Call details both of the above mobile phone and that from the
coin box land line provided in the jail show the continuous
phone calls made by the first accused to few doubtful
persons,some persons connected with the petitioner and inter
se calls among them. Details of several inter connected phone
calls are also unearthed by the investigating agency, with the
tower location of each person. Details of attempts made by
Vishnu to contact petitioner through few sources are also on
record. Records indicate that the first accused had written
the letter from the jail itself. Materials to indicate that,
immediately after the commission of crime, the accused along
with a co-accused had attempted to hand over the mobile and
memory card to the associates of petitioner.
16. The above facts, show that prima facie there are
BA No.5098/2017 10
materials to suspect the involvement of the petitioner in the
crime. Investigation is still progressing. It is still at a crucial
stage. It was submitted by the learned Director General of
Prosecution that, the manager Appunni is absconding and the
lawyer involved has to be effectively questioned. The
possibility of implicating other persons in the crime has also
not been ruled out by the learned DGP. Investigation seems to
be progressing.
17. The case is unique, considering its seriousness,
meticulous planning, cruel nature of execution and being a
crime executed to wreak vengeance on a woman by engaging
criminals, to sexually abuse her. Courts have to be
circumspect in granting bail in such cases.
18.There is yet another major reason which prompts
rejection of bail application. The crucial material object
which is the mobile phone used for recording the sexual
assault and the memory card in which the video graphed
materials are stored have not been recovered. The memory
card is a potential threat to the life of the victim and there is
every possibility of any of the accused attempting to interfere
in the investigation and the prosecution with the memory
card.
BA No.5098/2017 11
18. The petitioner, being a noted film actor, is also
involved in the distribution and production of films and is
also owner of a theater. Definitely, he must be wielding
considerable command on the industry. Hence, the possibility
of the petitioner influencing or threatening the several
witnesses, who are also from the same industry, cannot be
ruled out.
Having considered the above facts, I feel that it is too
early at this stage to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,
bail application fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge.
Dpk /True copy/ PS to Judge.
No comments:
Post a Comment