Thiruvananthapuram court grants bail to TG Mohandas citing police failure to issue Section 35(3) notice

In a ruling that underscores the mandatory character of arrest safeguards under the new criminal procedure code, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court in Thiruvananthapuram on August 10, 2026 , granted bail to T G Mohandas — a 71-year-old practising lawyer, political debater, and senior journalist — arrested in connection with controversial videos posted on his YouTube channel "Pathrika."

A Provocative Post and a Cyber Crime Case

The prosecution case stems from videos uploaded on July 24 and 25, 2026 , which allegedly contained statements intended to create fear and anxiety among protesters at Jantar Mantar, Delhi. The videos reportedly included a call for protesting students to be shot dead, remarks insulting womanhood, and content calculated to incite riots and breach public peace. Mohandas was 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), 2023 .

The case swiftly acquired a political complexion. Defence counsel argued the FIR was fuelled by political rivalry — Mohandas being closely associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Bharatiya Janata Party , while the de facto complainant was an Organising Committee Member of " Young Democrats ," an outfit the defence linked to the Social Democratic Party of India .

A Procedural Flashpoint: The Missing Section 35(3) Notice

At the heart of the bail plea lay a pointed procedural question: had the investigating agency complied with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 ? That provision obliges police, for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years , to issue a notice to the accused to appear before arrest — arrest being the exception, not the rule .

The remand report candidly recorded why no notice had been served: the investigating officer apprehended that Mohandas might abscond, destroy digital evidence, or influence the complainant. The court, however, found these justifications hollow. The officer had already located Mohandas at his known residential address in Ernakulam and conducted a search while he was present — a fact the magistrate held to be "inconsistent" with any genuine fear of absconding.

Precedent That Binds

Drawing on the Supreme Court 's decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2026), which reiterated the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar , the magistrate observed that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years , "a notice under S.35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 to an accused or any individual concerned... is the rule, while an arrest under S.35(6) read with S.35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023 , is a clear exception."

Since the only non-bailable offence alleged — Section 353(1)(b) of the BNS — carries a maximum punishment of three years, the statutory notice was plainly attracted. The court found that "the failure of the investigating agency to issue the notice has not been satisfactorily justified."

Evidence Already Secured, Custody Unwarranted

The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was necessary for further recovery and collection of digital evidence, and that the investigation was at an early stage with other accused yet to be identified — including the owner of the "Pathrika" channel. The magistrate was unpersuaded, noting that a Vivo mobile phone, Seagate hard disk, DBC modem, and JTP microphone had already been seized at the accused's residence and produced before the court in Form 151A.

"Mere assertion that the investigation is at an initial stage, that further witnesses are yet to be examined, that the involvement of other accused is to be ascertained, or that the owner of the YouTube channel 'Pathrika' is yet to be identified, by itself, does not furnish sufficient justification for keeping the accused in judicial custody ," the court observed.

The magistrate also took judicial notice of Mohandas's medical condition — he had suffered a stroke and was being treated for psoriasis and early-stage Parkinson's disease — and noted that no specific material was placed by the prosecution to controvert these concerns.

"An Abuse of the Process of Law "

The court was emphatic about the consequence of condoning procedural violations: "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 ."

Bail on Stringent Terms

Mohandas was released on a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount. He must appear before the investigating officer on August 11, 12, and 13 between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., and subsequently every Monday between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. for two months or until the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

In a nod to his professional standing, the court permitted Mohandas to use digital platforms and social media in the ordinary course of his journalistic work — but restrained him from using any platform to publish, circulate, or disseminate content relating to the alleged incident with an intention to influence, intimidate, harass, or cause harm to victims or witnesses, or to interfere with the investigation. Any violation invites cancellation of bail.