The Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace, Thiruvananthapuram on Monday (August 10) granted common bail to Proper Wing Activist T.G. Mohandas, who was arrested yesterday within the crime accusing him of propagating offensive content material towards the ladies protesters at Jantar Mantar.
Sri. Mithun Gopi G.S., Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace granted bail to Mohandas, noting procedural irregularities within the arrest of the 71-year-old.
“the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution concerning the potential of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses, or interfering with the investigation will be adequately addressed by imposing stringent circumstances whereas enlarging the accused on bail. Having regard to the totality of the info and circumstances of the case, together with the non-issuance of discover below Part 35(3), the restoration of the articles, the cooperation prolonged by the accused with the police investigation, in addition to the age and well being situation of the accused, this Courtroom is of the thought-about opinion that the additional detention of the accused in judicial custody just isn’t warranted at this stage,” the Courtroom noticed.
Part 35 BNSS offers with circumstances when police could arrest with out warrant. Sub-section (3) states that in instances the place arrest with out warrant is required, police officer has to challenge a discover to the accused to seem earlier than him.
The prosecution allegation is that Mohandas, with the intention to breach public peace and tranquility, and to incite riots, uploaded sure movies on YouTube channel “Pathrika” containing statements concerning the protests at Jantar Mantar.
It’s additional alleged that these statements have been meant to create concern and anxiousness among the many protesters. Furthermore, the identical contained offensive content material that insulted womanhood and violated the dignity of ladies, it’s alleged.
As per the FIR, it’s alleged that Mohandas commented that the scholars ought to be crushed and “shot useless” and that the protesters included “ladies who loved rape”.
He was booked for the offences punishable below Part 66 of the Data Know-how Act, Part 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 related to BJP and RSS whereas the complainant was a member of the Organising Committee member of Younger Democrats, a department of SDPI.
He additionally identified that there have been no distinctive circumstance to warrant the arrest and furthermore, the obligatory discover as per Part 35(3) BNSS was not issued.
The prosecution model was that there have been round 16 complaints made towards the accused. It was contended that Part 35(3) discover was not obligatory within the case since there was chance of the accused absconding and destroying digital proof, as recorded by the investigating officer.
Rejecting the competition, the court docket remarked that the supplies positioned earlier than the Courtroom don’t disclose any chance of evading investigation or absconding.
“The truth that the investigating company was capable of find the accused at his recognized residential tackle and conduct a search there may be, within the circumstances, inconsistent with such apprehension…Mere apprehension of destruction, tampering or manipulation of proof, within the absence of circumstances indicating a right away necessity for arrest, can’t by itself justify meting out with the statutory safeguard contemplated below Part 35(3) of the BNSS. The identical applies to the overall apprehension of the accused influencing the complainant, for which no particular materials is disclosed within the remand report,” it added.
The court docket thus got here to the conclusion that there was no justification for the investigating company to get rid of the statutory mandate of issuing discover. It additional famous that there was no want for custodial interrogation, particularly for the reason that digital gadgets allegedly used to commit the offence have been already recovered, seized and produced earlier than court docket.
Thus, the bail utility was allowed on circumstances.
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
