Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Booked For 'Threatening' Social Media Posts Against Police Officer & Family
The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to Arjun A., who had allegedly threatened Kothamangalam SHO on social media and had sent sexually explicit messages to his family members. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 430]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the accusation against Arjun was serious and that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course.
“Perusal of the case diary reveals that the accusation made against the applicant is very serious in nature, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. A reading of the post would show that it is prima facie defamatory in character,” the Court added.
The prosecution allegation was that the petitioner had enmity with the de facto complainant, who is the investigating officer in another crime in which he is arrayed as the prime accused. It is alleged that the petitioner made social posts threatening to kill the complainant and that he sent sexually explicit messages to the complainant's wife and his sister.
He is accused of committing the offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(iv) [Sexual harassment], 356 [Defamation] and 351(2) [Criminal intimidation] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Additionally, he is accused of committing the offences under Sections 120(o) [causing, through any means of communication, a nuisance of himself to any person by repeated or undesirable or anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail or through a messenger] and 117(e) [threatens, obstructs or assaults a police officer with the manifest intention of preventing such officer from discharging any of his duties] of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and Section 67 [Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form] of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Court further noted that the investigation was still in the preliminary stage and custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary. Moreover, there is possibility of interfering with the investigation and influencing witnesses, it noted.
The Court was of the opinion that this was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. It thus dismissed the plea.
Case No: B.A. No. 3377 of 2026
Case Title: Arjun A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Counsel of petitioner: P.K. Varghese, Dhanesh V. Madhavan, Jerry Mathew, Devika K.R., Sawparnika Raju
Counsel for the respondent: V. Vinay – Senior Public Prosecutor