IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Period of long undertrial detention alone is not a ground to grant bail to accused—Gravity of offence alleged against accused is also a criterion to be considered by Court while deciding bail application.

ORDER

The short point to be decided in this bail application is whether the period of long undertrial detention alone is a ground to grant bail to an accused.

2. The petitioner/accused, Sri. Sunil N.S, herein is the first accused in Crime No.297 of 2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is now pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam as Sessions Case No. 118 of 2018.

3. The prosecution case is that in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy by a movie star, who is the 8th accused in the case, the petitioner/first accused along with certain other accused abducted and sexually assaulted the victim in this case in a moving car. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused and other accused are under Sections 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 201, 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner/accused herein has been custody in connection with the above case from 23.02.2017 onwards. The petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody for the last six years. The petitioner/accused approached this Court earlier by filing a bail application numbered as B.A. No.2594 of 2022, and the same was dismissed by a detailed order on 29.03.2022. That order was challenged by the petitioner/accused before the Supreme Court, and the Apex Court dismissed the bail application with an observation that if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time, the petitioner/accused is at liberty to renew his application for grant of bail pending trial before the High Court. Based on the above observation of the Apex Court, the present bail application is filed.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner/accused and the Director General of Prosecution (hereinafter referred to as the, “DGP”) Shri.T.A.Shaji.

5. The counsel for the petitioner/accused reiterated the contentions raised in the bail application. The counsel submitted that the petitioner/accused has been in custody for about six years, and the trial is not yet been completed. The petitioner/accused also submitted that the main accused were already released on bail and the Trial Court now requested the Apex Court to extend the time to dispose of the sessions case. Under such circumstances, in the light of the observation of the Apex Court in the order rejecting the bail application submitted by the petitioner/accused, he is entitled to bail is the submission.

6. The DGP seriously opposed the bail application. The DGP submitted that the petitioner/accused is the first accused in a sensational case in the State, where a cine artist was sexually harassed in a cruel manner in a running car by the accused in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy by another movie star and grave allegations are raised against the petitioner/accused. The DGP submitted that there is no delay on the part of the Court or on the part of the prosecution in completing the trial. The Court and the prosecution are trying their best to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The DGP submitted that some more witnesses are there to be examined to prove the prosecution case. He also submitted that the examination of the witnesses is going on and the trial will be completed within a reasonable time. The DGP also submitted that the earlier order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner is confirmed by the Supreme Court and there is no change of circumstance. Hence, this bail application may not be entertained now is the submission.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner/accused and the learned DGP. When this bail application came up for consideration on 02.02.2023, this Court directed the Registry to get a report about the time required to dispose of the sessions case. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge submitted a report on 13.02.2023. It will be better to extract the report dated 13.02.2023.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed this court vide jud