Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
exit_to_app
DEEP READ
Ukraine
access_time 2023-08-16T11:16:47+05:30
Espionage in the UK
access_time 2025-06-13T22:20:13+05:30
Yet another air tragedy
access_time 2025-06-13T09:45:02+05:30
The Russian plan: Invade Japan and South Korea
access_time 2025-01-16T15:32:24+05:30
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightKeralachevron_rightBail granted by Kerala...

Bail granted by Kerala HC to YouTuber in derogatory social media post case

text_fields
bookmark_border
Bail granted by Kerala HC to YouTuber in derogatory social media post case
cancel

Kochi: The Kerala High Court granted bail to YouTuber Santhosh Varkey, also known as Arattannan, who had been arrested for allegedly making a derogatory Facebook post about women in the film industry.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha, in her ruling, stated that further custodial interrogation was not needed and that Varkey had already been in judicial custody for 11 days.

“Prima facie, a Facebook post has been made by the accused and prima facie, a disparaging statement has been made by him,” the Court observed, the Indian Today reported.

However, with the investigation still in progress and no justification from the prosecution for continued detention, bail was granted, according to the Bar and Bench.

Bail was granted to Varkey with certain conditions, including an instruction that he must not post any further derogatory remarks on social media while the case is ongoing.

The case originated from a Facebook post allegedly made by Varkey on April 20, 2025, in which he stated that “all women in the cinema industry are prostitutes.” The post quickly went viral and drew widespread criticism for its defamatory nature.

Following a complaint by a woman actor, who is the de facto complainant, an FIR was filed. The case was booked under Sections 75(3) read with 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The BNS provisions cited in the case pertain to offences involving the insult of a woman's modesty and acts of sexual harassment, while Section 67 of the IT Act addresses the electronic publication of obscene content.

Varkey’s lawyer contended that keeping him in custody was unnecessary, arguing that even in the worst-case scenario, the allegations amounted only to defamation and did not justify charges under the IT Act. Varkey also conveyed his readiness to follow any conditions set by the court.

Show Full Article
TAGS:Kerala HC Bail Defamatory post 
Next Story