Kerala Court Grants Bail To Right Wing Activist Arrested For Remarks Against Women Protesters At Jantar Mantar, Cites Procedural Irregularity
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram on Monday (August 10) granted regular bail to Right Wing Activist T.G. Mohandas, who was arrested yesterday in the crime accusing him of propagating offensive content against the women protesters at Jantar Mantar.
Sri. Mithun Gopi G.S., Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail to Mohandas, noting procedural irregularities in the arrest of the 71-year-old.
"the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or interfering with the investigation can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions while enlarging the accused on bail. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the non-issuance of notice under Section 35(3), the recovery of the articles, the cooperation extended by the accused with the police investigation, as well as the age and health condition of the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion that the further detention of the accused in judicial custody is not warranted at this stage," the Court observed.
Section 35 BNSS deals with circumstances when police may arrest without warrant. Sub-section (3) states that in cases where arrest without warrant is required, police officer has to issue a notice to the accused to appear before him.
The prosecution allegation is that Mohandas, with the intention to breach public peace and tranquility, and to incite riots, uploaded certain videos on YouTube channel "Pathrika" containing statements about the protests at Jantar Mantar.
It is further alleged that these statements were intended to create fear and anxiety among the protesters. Moreover, the same contained offensive content that insulted womanhood and violated the dignity of women, it is alleged.
As per the FIR, it is alleged that Mohandas commented that the students should be beaten and "shot dead" and that the protesters included "women who enjoyed rape".
He was booked for the offences punishable under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 79 and 353(1)(b), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The accused's counsel contended that the allegations are politically motivated since he was associated with BJP and RSS whereas the complainant was a member of the Organising Committee member of Young Democrats, a branch of SDPI.
He also pointed out that there were no exceptional circumstance to warrant the arrest and moreover, the mandatory notice as per Section 35(3) BNSS was not issued.
The prosecution version was that there were around 16 complaints made against the accused. It was contended that Section 35(3) notice was not necessary in the case since there was possibility of the accused absconding and destroying digital evidence, as recorded by the investigating officer.
Rejecting the contention, the court remarked that the materials placed before the Court do not disclose any possibility of evading investigation or absconding.
"The fact that the investigating agency was able to locate the accused at his known residential address and conduct a search there is, in the circumstances, inconsistent with such apprehension...Mere apprehension of destruction, tampering or manipulation of evidence, in the absence of circumstances indicating an immediate necessity for arrest, cannot by itself justify dispensing with the statutory safeguard contemplated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. The same applies to the general apprehension of the accused influencing the complainant, for which no specific material is disclosed in the remand report," it added.
The court thus came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the investigating agency to do away with the statutory mandate of issuing notice. It further noted that there was no need for custodial interrogation, especially since the electronic devices allegedly used to commit the offence were already recovered, seized and produced before court.
Thus, the bail application was allowed on conditions.
Case No: Crl.MP No. 1/2026 in Crime No. 95/2026
Case Title: T.G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala
Counsel for the petitioner: Shekar G. Thampi