{"id":347321,"date":"2025-05-07T16:00:24","date_gmt":"2025-05-07T10:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=347321"},"modified":"2025-05-13T18:11:44","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T12:41:44","slug":"kerala-high-court-grants-bail-arattannan-facebook-post-remarks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/07\/kerala-high-court-grants-bail-arattannan-facebook-post-remarks\/","title":{"rendered":"Kerala High Court grants bail to YouTuber Santhosh Varkey for objectionable Facebook post on female actors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Kerala High Court:<\/span> In a bail application filed by YouTuber Santhosh Varkey, popularly known as Arattannan<\/span>, who was accused of offences punishable under Sections 75(1)(iv), 75(3)<\/a>, and 79<\/a> of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a>, Section 67<\/a> of the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>, and Section 120(o)<\/a> of the Kerala Police Act, 2011<\/a>, the Single Judge Bench of M.B. Snehalatha*<\/span>, J. said that a fair and thorough probe could still be ensured by granting bail to Santhosh. Hence, having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the progress made in the investigation, the Court viewed that the grant of bail would not impede the ongoing investigation. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The prosecution’s case was that, on 20-04-2025, Santhosh Varkey had made a Facebook post stating that “All the ladies in the Cinema Industry are prostitutes”. A crime had been registered based on a complaint lodged by the complainant, who was an actress.<\/p>\n

Santhosh Varkey submitted that, even if the entire allegations against him were assumed to be true, the sections of law under which the offences were levelled would not be applicable. It was further submitted that the accused had been in judicial custody since 20-4-2025, and that his continued detention was not warranted.<\/p>\n

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation was still at its initial stage, and that if the accused were released on bail, he might engage in similar offences again. The Public Prosecutor further submitted that granting bail to the accused could result in him evading the course of justice.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court said that the materials produced by the prosecution would, prima facie, indicate that Santhosh Varkey had made disparaging and defamatory statements against women in the film industry through his Facebook post, as alleged by the prosecution.<\/p>\n

The Court said that making disparaging statements about women on social media constitutes a form of online harassment, amounting to defamation and an affront to the modesty of a woman. The publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form is an offence under the Information Technology Act. Despite the existence of penal provisions, such infractions continue to rise.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Santhosh Varkey has been in judicial custody since 25-04-2025. Having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the progress made in the investigation, the Court viewed that the grant of bail will not impede the ongoing investigation.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted that a fair and thorough probe could still be ensured by granting bail to Santhosh, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Accordingly, bail was granted on the following conditions:<\/p>\n