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 fact that the learned judge is sitting upto 7.30 PM and at some times even upto 8 PM to complete the evidence of the witnesses scheduled for that day. A bare perusal of the report of the learned sessions judge would show that the Court is doing its level best to dispose of the case. The Apex Court also accepted the extension petition submitted by the lower Court. Now the Trial Court only requires an additional 6 months’ time. I am of the opinion that there no unreasonable delay in concluding the trial, especially for the reason that the Apex Court has accepted the extension applications submitted by the Trial Court. There cannot be any straight jacket rule to decide the reasonable time necessary to conclude a trial. Each case is to be decided based on the volume of evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution and defense. In this case more than 200 witnesses were already examined. The Apex Court allowed all the extension petitions filed by the Trial Court to complete the trial. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, there is no unreasonable delay in the trial. The Apex Court is also monitoring the progress of the trial," it held.

The Court in this case also decided to peruse the evidence of the victim, but it clarified that the same was done only to understand the prosecution case properly. It added that in pending trial cases, the perusal of the evidence already adduced by the prosecution was not necessary to decide a bail application, and that the evidence already adduced alone would not be a reason to reject a bail application. "It is a well accepted principle that in an order passed in a bail application, there can be only reasons to reject or allow the bail application and there cannot be any finding or even prima facie finding based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The findings in the bail order by the superior court may influence the Trial Court while deciding the case finally. Such findings in bail order may also prejudice the prosecution and defence. Therefore, there can only be reasons to reject a bail application and there cannot be finding or even prima facie finding in a bail order," it added in this regard. 

The Court therefore, after understanding the prosecution case based on the evidence adduced by the victim was of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused would not be entitled to bail even though he had been in jail for around 6 years. 

The Court further noted that the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused would also be a criteria to be considered by the Court while deciding the bail application, as had been laid down by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019). 

"After going through the prosecution case and keeping in mind the above principle laid down by the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused is not entitled bail even though he has been jail for about six years. The petitioner/accused should face trial in custody in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case," the Court observed while dismissing the application. 

The Registry was also directed to return the deposition of the victim in a sealed cover to the Trial Court.

Senior Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor P. Narayanan and Senior Government Pleader Sajju S. also appeared in the present case. 

Case Title: Sunil N.S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

Click Here To Read/Download The Order