[Actress Assault Case] Kerala High Court Imposes Rs 25K Cost On Pulsar Suni For Filing 10th Bail Application

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of rupees twenty-five thousand upon him for filing "bail application after bail application". While imposing the cost, the Court noted that the 10^th bail application was filed within three days of dismissing his earlier bail application.

“Therefore, this bail application is dismissed imposing a costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay the costs to the Kerala Legal Services Authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the costs are not paid, the Legal Services Authority is free to recover the same from the petitioner and his assets, “ ordered the court.

The Court went on to state that there was nothing wrong with imposing costs since Suni had the financial security to engage different lawyers over the years before the High Court and the Apex Court.

“But from the conduct of the petitioner that he is filing bail application after bail application before this Court and the Apex Court, it is clear that either he is financially fit or there are some others behind the curtain to help him to file these bail applications. It is to be remembered that, conspiracy is alleged in the main case for the alleged act by the petitioner. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in imposing costs on the petitioner even if the petitioner is in custody for about 7 years.”added the Court.

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 first 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 custody since February 23, 2017 onwards and he has been in jail for 7 years now.

It found that the High Court had considered all the contentions of Suni and dismissed his bail applications. It found that the Apex Court has also dismissed his bail applications twice, once in 2022 and in 2023.

When Suni filed his 10^th bail application, the Court appointed Advocate R.Bindu (Sasthamangalam) as Amicus Curiae to address the Court as to whether cost could be imposed while dismissing a bail application. The Amicus Curiae submitted before the Court that it could impose cost in bail applications in appropriate cases.

The Court ruled that this is a case that is being closely watched by society and has affected the conscience of the Keralites. It stated that the trial is being conducted before the Trial Court and even the Apex Court is monitoring the same.

It said, “This Court considered the bail applications of the petitioner on several occasions and dismissed those bail applications. Two of the orders passed by this Court are confirmed by the Apex Court also. This Court clearly stated that the petitioner has to face trial in custody. That order is confirmed by the Apex Court.”

The Court stated that the 10^th bail application was filed merely after three days of dismissing the earlier bail application. It stated that there were absolutely no changes in circumstances to invoke the bail jurisdiction of the Court. It called the bail application as 'frivolous' because it was filed within three days of dismissal of his earlier bail application without any material change in circumstances.

Relying upon Vineeth v. State of Kerala (2015), the Court stated that Courts can impose costs if parties adopt delaying tactics or try to mislead the court. It stated that the Court has ample powers to pass orders under Section 489 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure ends of justice.

As such, the Court imposed costs upon Suni and dismissed his 10^th bail application.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates V.V.Pratheeksh Kurup, Ravi Krishnan, Dev Nandan A.

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor B.S.Syamantak

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 334

Case Title: Sunil N S v State of Kerala

Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 4368 Of 2024

Click here to read/download Order