TRIAL NOT LIKELY TO CONCLUDE IN ACTRESS SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE, SAYS SUPREME COURT WHILE GRANTING BAIL TO MAIN ACCUSED
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
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 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 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 case details are- Sunil NS v/s State of Kerala.
FACTUAL NOTION-
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.
CONCLUSION-
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 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.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ALOK CHHAPARWAL
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
