10 Bail Applications Filed Through Different Lawyers: Kerala HC Dismisses Pulsar Suni’s Bail Plea With Costs In Actress Assault Case
The Kerala High Court dismissed Pulsar Suni’s 10th bail application with Rs. 25K in costs actress assault case observing that he had already filed ten bail applications through different lawyers.
The Bench imposed a cost on Sunil N.S. alias Pulsar Suni (accused) to be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. The Court noted that such measures were necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of a court. The Court also observed that the continuous filing of bail applications suggested that the accused was either “financially fit” to engage multiple lawyers or had “some others behind the curtain to help him.”
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “Section 482 Cr.P.C. give ample power to this Court to pass appropriate orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Criminal Procedure Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore this Court has ample power to impose costs even in a bail application.”
Advocate V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup represented the petitioner, while PP B.S. Syamantak appeared for the respondent.
The case, widely known across Kerala as the “assault against the cine actress”, involved the abduction and sexual assault of an actress in a moving car. It was allegedly orchestrated by a criminal conspiracy involving several accused, including an actor. The charges against the accused included Sections 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354 B, 357, 376 D, 201 and 212 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The accused had been in custody since 2017. The trial, monitored by the Supreme Court, was underway in the Sessions Court.
The Bench stated that the repeated bail applications were an abuse of the process of the Court, noting that the accused had already approached both the High Court and the Supreme Court multiple times. The Court pointed out that previous bail applications were dismissed with clear directions that the accused must face trial in custody.
The Court further stated that there had been no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail applications. This persistence in filing bail applications, despite no new developments, led the Court to consider the imposition of costs to deter frivolous litigation.
“But it is a fact that the petitioner filed about 10 bail applications before this Court through different lawyers. The petitioner approached the Apex Court also on two occasions. If the petitioner has financial difficulties, he will approach the Legal Services Authority to engage a lawyer. But he chose to engage his own lawyers which of course is his right. But from the conduct of the petitioner that he is filing bail application after bail application before this Court and the Apex Court, it is clear that either he is financially fit or there are some others behind the curtain to help him to file these bail applications,” the Court remarked.
The Court's rejection came just three days after the accused’s previous bail application was dismissed. The Bench pointed out the repetitive nature of the applications without any change in circumstances as an important factor in considering bail applications.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail application.
Cause Title: Sunil.N.S v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:37570)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate V.V. Pratheeksh Kurup, Ravi Krishnan and Dev Nandan A.
Respondent: PP B.S. Syamantak; Amicus Curiae R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam)
