Denial of Suspension of Sentence Under Section 389 Code in Actress Assault Case: Kerala High Court

In a significant verdict reaffirming the standards for post-conviction relief, the Kerala High Court has dismissed the plea filed by Sunil N.S., famously known as ‘Pulsar’ Suni, seeking the suspension of his 20-year prison sentence in the 2017 actress assault case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar rejected the petition, emphasizing that once guilt is established by a competent court, the presumption of innocence is erased, and the bar for granting bail becomes substantially higher.

A Diabolic Conspiracy and Judicial Findings The case stems from a horrific crime on February 17, 2017, where a prominent Malayalam actress was abducted and sexually assaulted in a moving vehicle. The prosecution alleged that the crime was part of a premeditated conspiracy involving the documentation of graphic visuals for extortion and harassment. In December 2025, the Ernakulam Sessions Court found Pulsar Suni and five others guilty, sentencing them to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for gang rape and related charges under the Indian Penal Code and the IT Act.

Arguments Before the Bench Representing the appellant, Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar argued that the trial court failed to properly weigh vital contradictions and omissions in the prosecution’s evidence. Furthermore, he highlighted that the appellant had already spent over eight years in judicial custody, contending that the long duration of the trial and pending appeals entitled him to suspension of his sentence.

Conversely, the State, represented by Special Public Prosecutor V. Ajakumar, and the survivor’s counsel, Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover, vehemently opposed the move. They characterized the crime as "ghastly and macabre," stressing that the convict’s extensive criminal history—11 prior cases—and his conduct while on previous bail created a genuine risk of his absconding or causing further harm to the victim by leaking the sensitive visuals of the assault.

Presumption of Innocence and the Rule of Law The High Court drew a sharp distinction between pre-trial and post-conviction bail. Relying on established precedents such as Preet Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , the court clarified that at the post-conviction stage, the principle that " jail is the rule and bail is the exception " takes precedence.

"The appellate court is duty-bound to record strong, cogent, and compelling reasons justifying such an exercise of discretion," the court noted. Addressing the contention that long incarceration should automatically trigger bail, the bench held that such a fact cannot stand alone, especially when contrasted with the severity of the offense.

Key Observations The judgment offers a firm reminder of the societal stakes involved in criminal justice:

"The manner of commission of the offence is unprecedented in its nature and execution. The contention advanced that the allegation, which was found to be true, has shocked the collective conscience of society and cannot be brushed aside."

"Its gravity extends beyond the individual victim, as it strikes at the dignity, bodily autonomy, and sense of security of women. It would also undermine public confidence in the rule of law and the administration of criminal justice ."

Implications for the Future By dismissing the application, the Kerala High Court has reinforced that judicial discretion in suspending sentences is not a routine procedure but a process requiring deep scrutiny of public interest and the nature of the crime. As the State's appeal for enhanced sentencing and various other related petitions remain pending, the court has made it clear that the integrity of the criminal justice system is paramount, particularly in cases involving crimes against women that threaten the fundamental sense of security in society. Pulsar Suni will continue to serve his sentence while his appeal is heard.