The Kerala High Court has dismissed separate applications filed by two convicted persons seeking suspension of their sentences in the 2017 actress assault case. Holding that post-conviction bail cannot be granted as a matter of routine, the Division Bench found that neither applicant had demonstrated any exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of the sentence pending disposal of their criminal appeals.
The two applications were filed independently by Pradeep (Accused No. 6) and Saleem H. @ Vadival Salim (Accused No. 5) after they were convicted by the Ernakulam Sessions Court in December 2025.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution case placed before the High Court, the incident arose from an alleged conspiracy to abduct a leading actress, sexually assault her, and record explicit visuals with the intention of humiliating and traumatizing her. The prosecution alleged that multiple accused played different roles in executing the plan on February 17, 2017. Following a lengthy trial involving 261 prosecution witnesses, hundreds of documentary exhibits, and material objects, the Sessions Court convicted several accused while acquitting others.
Before the High Court, both applicants challenged the findings of the trial court and sought suspension of their sentences during the pendency of their appeals.
Arguments Before the Court
The applicants argued that the evidence had not been properly appreciated by the Sessions Court. They contended that they had no active role in the alleged offence, disputed the prosecution's theory of conspiracy, questioned aspects of their arrest and investigation, and maintained that prolonged incarceration justified suspension of sentence.
The State opposed the applications, submitting that the evidence, including electronic records and the testimony of the victim, sufficiently established the applicants' participation. Counsel appearing for the victim also opposed the pleas, arguing that the gravity of the crime and the findings recorded after trial weighed against granting post-conviction relief.
Court's Observations
The Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar emphasized that the legal principles governing suspension of sentence after conviction differ significantly from those applicable at the pre-trial bail stage.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Bench observed that once a conviction has been recorded, the presumption of innocence no longer operates in the same manner and suspension of sentence requires strong and compelling reasons.
The court observed:
“There should be strong compelling reasons for grant of bail... by suspension of sentence, and such reasons must be recorded.”
Examining the material on record, the Bench held that, at the present stage, it could not conclude that the trial court's findings suffered from any patent illegality, perversity, or manifest infirmity that would justify suspending the sentence. It further noted that the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the offence, and broader public interest were relevant considerations while deciding such applications.
Decision
Concluding that neither applicant had established exceptional grounds for post-conviction relief, the High Court declined to suspend the execution of the sentences imposed by the Sessions Court.
The Bench held that the applicants had failed to make out a case warranting suspension of sentence and accordingly dismissed both applications.
Case Details
Case Title 1: Saleem H. @ Vadival Salim v. State of Kerala
Case Number 1: Crl.A. No. 2337 of 2025
Case Title 2: Pradeep v. State of Kerala
Case Number 2: Crl.A. No. 2334 of 2025
Judges: Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar
Decision Date: 17 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
