The Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea preferred by Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni seeking to suspend the sentence imposed on him in the 2017 Actress rape case.

In December 2025, the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam, had sentenced six accused, including the prime accused Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni, to 20 years of imprisonment. They were found guilty of the offences under Sections 376D, 120B, Sections 342, 354, 354B, 357 and 376D of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar on Thursday (July 9) heard detailed arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar appearing for Suni as well as the Special Public Prosecutor V. Aja Kumar and Advocate Vrinda Grover for the survivor.

It then found that there are no circumstances warranting suspension of sentence:

"the applicant has not been able to point out any patent infirmity, manifest illegality, or perversity in the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. At this interlocutory stage, we are unable to conclude that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are so unreasonable or perverse as to justify suspension of the execution of the sentence. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional or sufficient grounds warranting the suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed by the trial court."

The Court looked into precedents that dealt with the nature and scope of the jurisdiction to be exercised by an appellate court considering a sentence suspension plea. It remarked that as per the judgments, the principle is that jail is the rule and bail is the exception once a finding of guilt and conviction is made. There is no longer a presumption of innocence, it added.

It further observed:

"Before suspending the sentence and releasing a convict on bail, the appellate court is duty-bound to record strong, cogent, and compelling reasons justifying such an exercise of discretion. This requirement is not an empty formality but flows from the legislative intent underlying Section 389 of the Code, which recognises that a judgment of conviction carries with it a presumption of correctness unless it is set aside in appeal....the appellate court is required to objectively evaluate all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the gravity and seriousness of the crime, the sentence imposed, and the desirability of releasing the convict on bail pending disposal of the appeal. The Court must also bear in mind larger considerations of public interest, societal impact, and the need to preserve public confidence in the administration of criminal justice."

Next, the Court examined the evidence given by the survivor actress, the medical officer who examined her and actor Lal, who met the survivor after the incident. Then it looked at the contention advanced by the senior counsel that Suni had already undergone more than 8 years' in custody and opined that long incarceration by itself is no ground to suspend sentence.

"The manner of commission of the offence is unprecedented in its nature and execution. The contention advanced that the allegation, which was found to be true, has shocked the collective conscience of society and cannot be brushed aside. Its gravity extends beyond the individual victim, as it strikes at the dignity, bodily autonomy, and sense of security of women. It would also undermine public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of criminal justice...Having regard to the role attributed to the applicant, the nature of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, the gravity and seriousness of the crime, the sentence imposed by the trial court, the criminal antecedents of the applicant in as many as 11 grave crimes, his alleged involvement in another criminal case while he was on bail in the present case, and his violation of the conditions of bail imposed by the Court, we are of the considered view that no exceptional circumstance has been made out warranting the suspension of the sentence. We have also taken into account the larger considerations of public interest, the societal impact of the offence, and the need to preserve public confidence in the administration of criminal justice," the Court added.

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Case No: Crl.M.Appl. No.1/2026 in Crl.A No.130 of 2026

Case Title: Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni v. State of Kerala

Click to Read/Download Order