IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that repeated bail applications without change of circumstances can be dismissed with costs to deter frivolous litigation.

ORDER :

This Bail Application is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner on 23.05.2024, i.e., within three days after dismissing his earlier bail application filed as B.A.No.3403/2024. This is the 10th bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Whether the petitioner is entitled to file bail application after bail application, when this Court already observed that the petitioner has to face trial in custody? When repeated bail applications are filed by an accused without any change of circumstances, whether this Court can impose costs? These are the questions to be decided in this case.

2. Petitioner/accused Sri.Sunil N.S. is the 1st accused in Crime No.297/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam which is generally known in Kerala as a case of ‘assault against the cine actress’. The above case is now pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam as S.C.No.118/2018.

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/ 1st accused, along with certain other accused, abducted and sexually assaulted the victim in this case in a moving car. The victim is also a movie star as stated above. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused persons are under Sections 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354 B, 357, 376 D, 201 and 212 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 66E and 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. Admittedly the petitioner has been in custody in connection with the above case from 23.02.2017 onwards. The trial in S.C.No.118/2018 is in progress before the Principal Sessions Court, Ernakulam under the supervision of the Apex Court because the Apex Court fixed a time limit for disposing of the case. The prosecution case is affecting the conscience of the society because the victim in this case, who is a movie star, was taken in a car and she was sexually abused from the moving car by the petitioner and conspiracy was alleged against the 8th accused who is another movie star. The prosecution case is shocking to the conscience of the Keralites and they are closely watching the trial of the above case.

5. The petitioner, who is the 1st accused in the case against whom serious allegations are raised, moved this Court by filing a bail application as B.A.No.1216/2017 originally through Adv. E.C. Poulose and others. That bail application was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter B.A.No.4121/2017 was filed through Adv. B.A. Aloor on 14.06.2018. That bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, B.A.No.6553/2017 was filed through Adv. B.A. Aloor and others. That bail application was considered by this Court in detail and dismissed the same with a direction to expedite the trial.

6. Thereafter, B.A.No.7108/2020 was filed through Adv. V. John Sebastian Ralph and others and that bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn. Again B.A. No.3409/2021 was filed by Adv. V. John Sebastian Ralph and he relinquished vakalath and consequently Adv. V.V. Pratheesh Kurup appeared for the petitioner. That bail application was also dismissed as withdrawn.

7. Subsequently, B.A.No.2594/2022 was filed before this Court. This Court dismissed the above bail application after considering all the contention of the petitioner. This Court observed that, 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. This Court also observed that it will convey a wrong signal to the society. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed. The above order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3394/2022 before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 13.07.2022. But the Apex Court observed that, if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his application