Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To Pulsar Suni In 2017 Actor Assault Case

The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed the bail application of Sunil N.S., also known as 'Pulsar Suni', the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while dismissing the bail application, observed, "The prosecution case is very serious. The prosecution case is that, the victim was taken in a car and she was sexually harassed brutally by the petitioner/accused and others turning a deaf ear to her begging to release her. A conspiracy is also alleged. Whether the victim is a cine artist or not is not at all a factor. The prosecution case is that a lady was brutally attacked. The truth has to come out after the trial. Simply because the petitioner/accused is in jail for six years, it cannot be a ground to release him in such a serious case. The prosecution and the Court are taking every possible effort to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The Apex Court is also supervising the trial and is granting time to the Trial Court to complete the trial. The Trial Court now says that the sessions case itself can be disposed of within six months. I believe that in such a situation this Court need not entertain this bail application. Whether the prosecution succeed in this case or the defence succeed in this case is not a criteria in these types of cases. When there is serious allegation against an accused affecting the conscience of the society, this Court cannot allow bail application solely on the ground of personal liberty".The prosecution case against Suni is that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy by actor Dileep, the former along with certain other accused had abducted and sexually assaulted the victim in a moving car in the year 2017. While Suni is the main accused in the case, Malayalam actor Dileep is a co-accused and is alleged to be the brain behind the conspiracy. There are 10 accused in the 2017 case.Sections 120 (B), 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 201, and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66 A and 66 E of the Information Technology Act have been invoked against the 10 accused persons. Suni has been in jail for almost 6 years now.It was further stated in the bail application that the applicant was not in a position to defend his case properly by consulting and discussing with his lawyer, since he was not on bail and was not being produced in court everyday. Suni had earlier approached the High Court for grant of bail in March 2022. Justice Kunhikrishnan had on March 29, 2022, rejected the same, noting that bail could not be granted at that stage.When Suni approached the Apex Court against the same, the top court also declined to grant him bail, and did not interfere with the High Court order refusing the bail. However, it had added that the applicant, Suni, can approach the High Court for bail again if the trial is not concluded within reasonable time.Advocate V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup argued on behalf of Suni that he had been in custody for about six years, and the trial was not yet completed. It was pointed out that the the main accused were already released on bail and the Trial Court now requested the Apex Court to extend the time to dispose of the sessions case. "Under such circumstances, in the light of the observation of the Apex Court in the order rejecting the bail application submitted by the petitioner/accused, he is entitled to bail is the submission," it was argued. On the other hand, it was argued by the Director General of Prosecution T.A. Shaji that there was no on the part of the Court or on the part of the prosecution in completing the trial, and that the prosecution was trying their best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. He submitted that the examination of witnesses was going on and that the trial would be completed within a reasonable time.The Court in this case was faced with the question as to whether the period of long undertrial detention alone would be a ground to grant bail to an accused.The Court took note that in pursuance of its direction to the Registry to get a report about the time required to dispose of the sessions case, the Sessions Judge had informed that six more months would be necessary for the completion of the trial. The Court noted that since the Apex Court had allowed the petitioner/accused to file the bail application if the trial was not completed within a 'reasonable time', it would have to ascertain as to what this 'reasonable time' is. It noted that the Apex Court had regularly accepted the report submitted by the Trial Court and extended the time to dispose of the case, with a direction to expedite the trial. "A perusal of the report dated 13.02.2023 of the Trial Court would show that about 237 witnesses were examined in the case as on that date and additional witness list is also filed by the prosecution for examination. It is an admitted fact that the learned sessions judge is giving priority to this case. It is also an admitted...

Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To Pulsar Suni In 2017 Actor Assault Case

Navya Benny

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Kerala High Court Refuses Bail To Pulsar Suni In 2017 Actor Assault Case

Navya Benny

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers