Thiruvananthapuram- T G Mohandas, who was arrested over alleged remarks calling for protesters at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar to be shot and making objectionable comments about women protesters, was granted bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Court in Thiruvananthapuram on August 10. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Mithun Gopi G S observed that the investigating agency had failed to provide sufficient grounds for not issuing a notice to Mohandas under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before his arrest. The court also held that, in the circumstances of the case, his continued judicial custody was not warranted.
Reacting on the bail order, Kerala Health Minister K Muraleedharan said, "Mohandas was booked for offences for which it was not easy to get bail, as that was the kind of statements he made. He got bail on a loophole. Nevertheless, the government will take a stringent steps in the matter,” he asserted.
The case relates to Crime No. 95/2026 registered at the Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Crime Police Station. Mohandas has been booked under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Sections 79, 192, 353(1)(b) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the prosecution, he uploaded videos on the YouTube channel ‘Pathrika’ on July 24 and 25 containing statements allegedly intended to create fear and anxiety among activists participating in the Jantar Mantar protest and disrupt public peace. The prosecution further alleged that the videos contained remarks insulting womanhood and violating the dignity of women, and that he stated that students protesting at Jantar Mantar should be shot dead.
Mohandas said students protesting at Jantar Mantar should be shot and made comments concerning women protesters that allegedly insulted womanhood and violated their dignity.
Mohandas allegedly said that if he had been responsible for handling the Jantar Mantar protest, he would have imposed a curfew over an area of around four square kilometres, warned protesters three times to disperse and then ordered firing. He was heard saying that people would run, some would be killed and others injured, and that the situation would be brought under control within a few hours, after which the bodies would be taken to hospital.
In another video, he made highly objectionable remarks about women protesters, allegedly claiming that Delhi students’ protest could lead to incidents of sexual assault. He said,"Gang-rapes will happen. In this case, there won't be any complaints as these are people who like being raped. There are women who like being raped, especially Leftists, secular, democratic and proletarians.”
The bail granted to the RSS-linked commentator and senior journalist may appear surprising at first glance. But the order of the Thiruvananthapuram Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate makes it clear that the court did not grant bail by endorsing or approving the alleged statements. The court’s focus was primarily on the legality and necessity of the arrest, the statutory safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and whether continued custodial interrogation was actually required.
The crucial issue before the court, however, was not whether such remarks were socially acceptable. It was whether the arrest itself complied with the law. Mohandas' counsel argued that the only non-bailable offence invoked was Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS, carrying a maximum punishment of three years, and that the police had failed to issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS before arresting him. The defence relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, which reiterates that, for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, issuance of a Section 35(3) notice is the rule and arrest is an exception.
The prosecution argued that issuing such a notice could have allowed Mohandas to abscond, destroy digital evidence or influence the complainant. But the Magistrate found these apprehensions insufficiently supported by specific material. The investigating agency had already located Mohandas at his known residence, searched the premises in his presence and recovered the electronic devices allegedly connected with the offence. The court therefore observed that the material did not disclose any specific circumstance indicating that he was attempting to evade investigation or was likely to abscond.
On the question of digital evidence, the court was equally categorical. It noted that no specific or cogent circumstance had been disclosed showing that immediate arrest was necessary to preserve the evidence. “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 reasoning, the court said, applied to the prosecution's general apprehension that the accused could influence the complainant.
The court also rejected the argument that custodial interrogation was necessary merely because the investigation was at an initial stage. The prosecution had pointed out that further witnesses were yet to be examined, the role of other accused persons was still being investigated and the owner of the YouTube channel ‘Pathrika’ had not yet been identified. But the court said it was unable to appreciate “how the custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary for any of the purposes stated by the learned APP.” The mere fact that an investigation is ongoing, witnesses remain to be examined or another person's role has yet to be established, the court held, does not by itself justify continued custody.
Another important factor was that the police had already questioned Mohandas and completed the relevant search and seizure proceedings. The order records that the Vivo mobile phone, Seagate hard disk, DBC modem and JTP microphone had already been recovered from his residence and produced before the court. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish sufficient grounds for further custodial interrogation at that stage.
The Magistrate also took note of Mohandas' age and health. His counsel submitted that he is 71 years old, a practising lawyer, political debater and senior journalist, and suffers from serious health conditions. It was submitted that he had suffered a stroke and was suffering from serious ailments, including psoriasis and early-stage Parkinson's disease. The prosecution did not advance specific submissions or produce material contradicting the medical concerns raised by the defence.
One of the strongest observations in the order concerns the police's compliance with the law. The court said: “No proceedings can be permitted to continue in a manner contrary to the settled position of law, as permitting the same would amount to allowing the police authorities to act in derogation of the process of law and would result in an abuse of the process of law.”
The court ultimately held that the prosecution's concerns about absconding, influencing witnesses or interfering with the investigation could be addressed through stringent bail conditions. It specifically considered the non-issuance of the Section 35(3) notice, the recovery of the articles, the cooperation extended by the accused, and his age and health before concluding that further judicial custody was not warranted at that stage.
Speaking with The Mooknayak, Kerala High Court advocate Aditya stated," The bail order should not be read as a judicial clean chit to Mohandas' alleged statements. The court did not conduct a final adjudication on whether the alleged remarks amounted to the offences charged. The decision turned substantially on arrest procedure, the absence of a demonstrated need for custodial interrogation, the fact that relevant digital devices had already been seized, and the possibility of addressing the prosecution's concerns through bail conditions."
There is also an important distinction between the alleged statements and the legal question of bail. The prosecution's allegations remain allegations unless and until established in accordance with law. The court's decision concerns his entitlement to remain out of custody while the investigation and subsequent proceedings continue.
The conditions imposed by the court are significant. Mohandas must furnish a ₹50,000 bond with two solvent sureties for the like amount, appear before the investigating officer on August 11, 12 and 13 between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., and thereafter appear every Monday between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. for two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. He has also been prohibited from threatening or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The court allowed him to continue using digital platforms and social media “in the ordinary course of his profession and for legitimate journalistic purposes.” At the same time, it expressly prohibited him from using such platforms to publish or circulate material relating to the alleged incident with the intention of influencing, intimidating, harassing or harming the victim or any witness, or interfering with the investigation or administration of justice. Violation of these conditions could lead to an application for cancellation of bail.
The Mooknayak spoke to legal experts to understand the court’s approach to granting bail in cases involving allegedly offensive and indecent remarks. Advocates explain that this approach is not entirely unprecedented. "In 2025, the Supreme Court granted bail to Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad in connection with his social-media comments concerning women military officers, while imposing restrictions relating to public comments on the case and social-media activity", says Bhanupriya, a former faculty at MLSU's College of Law.
In May 2026, the Rajasthan High Court granted bail to an accused in a case involving allegations concerning the dignity of a woman, sexual harassment and cyber-stalking, while imposing a one-year restriction on his use of social media.
" In January 2025, the Kerala High Court granted bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur in the case involving alleged obscene/double-meaning remarks against actor Honey Rose. While observing that “body shaming is not acceptable in our society” and finding prima facie elements of the alleged offence, the court nevertheless granted bail, reiterating the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” Shiny Samson, a practising advocate at Rajasthan High Court points out.
These cases illustrate that courts may, in appropriate circumstances, choose stringent bail conditions to protect victims, witnesses and the investigation rather than deny bail altogether.
In this context, the Mohandas order is significant because the court permitted him to use social media in the ordinary course of his journalistic profession, while specifically prohibiting him from publishing or disseminating material concerning the alleged incident with the intention of influencing, intimidating, harassing or harming the victim or any witness, or interfering with the investigation or administration of justice. Violation of these conditions could provide grounds for seeking cancellation of bail.
The grant of bail should not be construed as judicial approval of the alleged remarks. Rather, the central questions before the court were whether keeping the accused in custody was necessary for the investigation and whether his arrest had been carried out in accordance with the statutory procedure. In the Mohandas case, the court found the prosecution's justification inadequate on both counts.
You can also join our WhatsApp group to get premium and selected news of The Mooknayak on WhatsApp. Click here to join the WhatsApp group.