Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To YouTube Channel Editor Booked For Allegedly Obscene Content Involving CM Pinarayi Vijayan
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 30) granted pre-arrest bail to the chief editor of Crime Online, a YouTube Channel, who is accused of posting an obscene content involving Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to T.P. Nandakumar, who is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) for posting a video with a caption in Malayalam that translates to “What exactly did Pinarayi do by lifting Saritha Nair's skirt...the video is out”.
The Cyber Crime Police Station registered a crime against the petitioner on the very same day as the post was made and included offences under Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 67 and 67A IT Act. The BNS offence was later deleted during the investigation.
The prosecution has alleged that the video posted by the petitioner contain obscene material involving sexually explicit content and that he posted it on his social media platform with an intention to incite public mutiny and to tarnish the CM Vijayan's reputation.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that offence under Section 67A IT Act would not get attracted as the post does not contain any sexually explicit content. According to him, this was a purely political analysis, pointing to the double standards taken by the ruling party led by the Chief Minister when it comes to sexual assault allegations by his own party members and others.
The prosecution opposed grant of anticipatory bail saying that the release of the petitioner would prejudicially affect the investigation, which is at an early stage. It was argued that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case since the petitioner's intention was to humiliate the Chief Minister. The petitioner's criminal antecedents were also pointed out.
The Court referred to Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act and various case laws to conclude that a publication must depict actual or simulated sexual acts or intercourse to attract Section 67A.
After examining the transcription of the contents of the video, the Court opined that the petitioner was actually commenting about the alleged assault of a woman by a sitting MLA, comparing it with a similar incident that occurred in 2015 involving Saritha Nair.
“While criticising the double standard alleged to have shown by the ruling party and its head, the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, in both issues, there was a comment that the said stand of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister would amount to 'politics with a skirt up'…The said comment has been projected as having sexually explicit content. By no stretch of imagination can it be characterised as sexually explicit content. In short, the contents of the video do not contain any sexually explicit acts or conduct,” the Court observed.
It thus found that prima facie, offence under Section 67A is not attracted. Relying on Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, the Court opined that pendency of several crimes involving similar offence cannot by itself be the basis for refusing anticipatory bail if someone is entitled to it otherwise.
The Court felt that custodial interrogation does not seem necessary in the present case taking into consideration, the allegations made out.
Also noting that the hard disk containing the alleged video was already seized by the police in connection with another crime and the investigation in the present one is almost complete, the Court felt that this was a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Thus, it allowed the plea and granted pre-arrest bail on conditions.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 12607 of 2025
Case Title: T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Counsel for the petitioner: Bimala Baby, Roshan Shaji, Remya Thomas, S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Anilkumar C.R., Sarath K.P., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar Padickal, T.P. Aravind, Akshara S.
Counsel for the respondents: U. Jayakrishnan - Public Prosecutor