- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- 'Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon...
'Trial Not Likely To Conclude Soon In Actress Sexual Assault Case', Says Supreme Court Granting Bail To Main Accused Pulsar Suni
Amisha Shrivastava
17 Sept 2024 11:30 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 17) granted bail to Sunil NS, also known as Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the 2017 actress sexual assault case, after considering his long period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial. Suni, who has been in custody for more than seven and a half years, is accused of conspiring with Malayalam actor Dileep and others in the abduction...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 17) granted bail to Sunil NS, also known as Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the 2017 actress sexual assault case, after considering his long period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
Suni, who has been in custody for more than seven and a half years, is accused of conspiring with Malayalam actor Dileep and others in the abduction and sexual assault of the actress in a moving vehicle near Kochi in February 2017.
A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal noted that as 268 prosecution witnesses have been examined and there are nine accused in the case, completing the trial, including the recording of statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, would take considerable time.
“The appellant has undergone incarceration for more than seven and a half years. All other co-accused have been granted bail…We have also noted the manner in which trial has progressed. Accused no. 8 cross examined the investigating officer from 15th February 2024 to 10th September 2024. The deposition of the said witnesses runs to 1800 pages. Since 261 witnesses have been examined and the case involves nine accused even recording of statements under section 313 of the CrPC will take a long time. Considering the long incarceration and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time, a case is made out for enlarging the appellant on bail”, the Court stated in the order.
The Court also took into account that all other co-accused had already been granted bail.
The Court observed that the investigating officer had been under cross-examination by Dileep's counsel from February 15, 2024, to September 10, 2024, and the deposition had reached 1,800 pages.
Considering these factors, the Supreme Court held that the long delay in the trial and Suni's extended incarceration justified granting him bail.
The Court directed that Suni should be produced before the trial court within a week for the finalization of bail conditions, with the State being heard before the terms are finalized.
While the Supreme Court opined that that costs should not have been imposed on Suni by the Kerala High Court when it dismissed his 10th bail application, it decided not to interfere with the Rs. 25,000 fine since the amount would be directed to the Kerala Legal Services Authority.
Senior Advocate K Parameshwar and Advocate Sriram Parakkat appeared for the petitioner.
Actor Sexual Assault Case | Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Lengthy Cross Examination By 'Influential Accused' Dileep
The Court last month sought details from the State of Kerala regarding the number of remaining witnesses to be examined in the 2017 actress sexual assault case while hearing the bail application of Sunil NS, also known as Pulsar Suni, the main accused in the case.
During the proceedings on that day, Advocate Sriram Parakkat, representing Pulsar Suni, informed the bench that Prosecution Witness (PW-261) has been under examination by actor Dileep's counsel for the past 95 days.
Dileep, a prominent Malayalam actor, is a co-accused in the case, charged with conspiracy behind the abduction and sexual assault of the actress, which took place in a moving vehicle on the outskirts of Kochi in February 2017.
The charges against Suni and his co-accused include Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 109 (abetment), 342 (wrongful confinement), 366 (kidnapping), 354 (assault on a woman), 354B (use of criminal force with intent to disrobe), 357 (assault or criminal force), 376D (gang rape), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 212 (harboring an offender) of the IPC and Sections 66A and 66E of the Information Technology Act. There are a total of 10 accused in the case.
The Supreme Court has been monitoring the trial's progress, receiving status reports from the trial judge periodically. On May 8, 2023, the Court had set a deadline for the trial to be completed by July 31, 2023, based on a report from the trial judge. However, in August 2023, the Supreme Court extended this deadline to March 31, 2024.
The Kerala High Court earlier this year dismissed the 10th bail application filed by Pulsar Suni. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan of the HC also imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on Suni for filing repeated bail applications, stating that his 10th application was filed within three days of the previous one being rejected. The court noted that Suni had been filing bail applications without any change in circumstances.
The HC noted that it 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.
The HC remarked on the financial resources Suni seemingly had at his disposal to repeatedly engage different lawyers before both the HC and the Supreme Court, despite being in custody for over seven years. The HC also pointed out that Suni's case involves allegations of conspiracy in the abduction and assault, with Dileep allegedly being the mastermind behind the crime.
The HC observed that Suni had filed multiple bail applications, all of which were dismissed. The HC highlighted that Suni's recent bail applications had no substantive change in the facts or circumstances, calling the 10th application “frivolous.”
The HC referred to Vineeth v. State of Kerala (2015), which held that courts have the authority to impose costs in cases where parties use delaying tactics or attempt to mislead the court. The HC held that costs can be imposed in appropriate cases, especially when it appears that a petitioner is attempting to delay proceedings or misuse the judicial process.
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State.
Case no. – SLP(Crl.) No. 11147/2024
Case Title – Sunil NS v. State of Kerala
