[2017 Actress Assault] "Will convey wrong signal to society:" Kerala High Court denies bail to prime accused Pulsar Suni

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the 2017 actress abduction and sexual assault case in which Malayalam cine actor Dileep is an accused [Sunil NS v State of Kerala].Justice PV Kunhikrishnan noted that the grounds on which the accused sought bail were already considered in detail by the High Court when he had previously applied for bail and there have been no change in circumstances since then.The single-judge opined that since the accused has been booked for offenses of a grievous nature, granting him bail would send a wrong message to the society. "The Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial is in the fag end. Moreover, it is also submitted that a further investigation is also going on. One of the ground mentioned in the bail application for getting bail is that, there is threat to the life of the petitioner in jail. If there is any such threat, jail authorities will do the needful. That is not a ground to release the petitioner on bail. Similarly, in a serious case like this, in which there are specific allegations against the petitioner, it is not appropriate to release the petitioner on bail. It will convey a wrong signal to the society," the Court said in its order. .In 2017, six persons, including the accused, were arrested and arrayed as accused after a prominent female actor was abducted, driven around in a car, photographed and sexually assaulted, allegedly at actor Dileep’s behest.Sunil NS, also known by his moniker Pulsar Suni, is the first accused in the infamous case which is alleged to have been the result of a conspiracy that was hatched between the accused.Suni had allegedly revealed to investigators that prominent figures from the Malayalam Film Industry, including Dileep, were not only involved in the crime, but were also the masterminds behind it. The trial in the case is currently underway at the at the Additional Sessions (CBI special No III) Court at Ernakulam. The case registered against the petitioner and others alleged offences punishable under Sections 342, 366, 376D, 506(i), 212, 201, 120(b) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act..Advocate VV Pratheeksh Kurup, appearing for Suni, submitted that the petitioner has been jail for the last 5 years and 1 month, and has been facing many threats to his life in the meantime. He submitted that the trial has not concluded yet and that just recently, the trial court filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time to complete the trial. Under such circumstances, he prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail and that he would willingly comply with any conditions the Court may deem fit to impose..Senior Public Prosecutor Deepa Narayanan argued against granting bail on the grounds that the trial is actually at its fag end and that a strong prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. .The High Court opined that it is for the jail authorities to do the needful if there are any threats to the petitioner's life and that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate. It, therefore, dismissed the bail application..[Read Order]