The Kerala High Court in the case Sunil N.S. v. State of Kerala observed and has reserved the decision on an bail application of Sunil N.S., also known as ‘Pulsar Suni’, who being the main accused in the 2017 Actor Assault Case.
The bench headed by Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan in the case observed and has noted that there are several decisions which state that the gravity of the offence would also have to be considered in such offences, and that simply because the accused has remained in jail for so many years, the same cannot be a ground for release.
The case of the prosecution against Suni being in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy by an actor Dileep, who being the former along with certain other accused had abducted and has sexually assaulted the victim in the year 2017 in a moving car. In the case, Sunil who being the main accused, Malayalam actor Dileep being the co-accused and it is alleged to be the brain behind the conspiracy. Therefore, there being 10 accused in the 2017 case.
The 10 accused person are being invoked under Section 120 (B), Section 109, Section 342, Section 366, Section 354, Section 354B, Section 357, Section 376D, Section 201, and Section 212 reading with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66 A and 66 E of the Information Technology Act. Therefore, Sunil being in jail for almost 6 years now.
Earlier, the court observed that Suni approached the High Court for granting of bail in March 2022. The bench headed by Justice Kunhikrishnan rejected the same on March 29, 2022 wherein the court noted that the bail could not be granted at that stage. However, the Suni approached the Apex Court against the rejection of bail plea, it has also been declined by the Supreme Court to grant him bail. However, the Top Court had granted Suni the liberty for approaching the High Court for bail again if the trial is not concluded within reasonable time.
The petition filed through Advocate V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup averred that there being no absolute chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. The applicant has not moved any other court wherein seeking the same relief and shall not move a similar application during the pendency of this application.
