Pranav B Prem

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram has refused bail to commentator Rahul Easwar in the case alleging that he disclosed the identity of a rape survivor and made sexually coloured remarks against her on social media. The prosecution case is that Easwar procured the photographs and personal details of the complainant, who has accused Palakkad Constituency MLA Rahul Mamkootathil of rape and coerced miscarriage, and circulated the same on Facebook and other social media platforms in clear violation of the statutory prohibition on revealing the identity of a victim of sexual assault. It is also alleged that he made vulgar and sexually coloured remarks against the victim through his YouTube channel.

Also Read: Recent Trend Of Succeeding Benches Overturning Verdicts Painful, Undermines Article 141 Finality; Supreme Court Dismisses Bail Cancellation Plea And Rejects Relaxation Of Kolkata-Only Condition

Easwar has been booked for offences under Sections 72 (disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences), 75(1)(iv) (sexual harassment), 79 (remarks intended to insult the modesty of a woman), and 351(1) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. He was arrayed as the fifth accused in Crime No. 169/2025 of Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Crime Police Station. After his arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate and sought bail immediately.

In support of his bail plea, Easwar contended that he was not given proper notice under Section 35(1) of the BNSS and that the only non-bailable offence alleged is Section 75 BNS. He also argued that the police had not produced any material to show that he made sexually coloured remarks against the complainant. 

The prosecution, however, opposed the plea and submitted that the YouTube videos referred to in the FIR had already been recovered and that a mahazar was being filed separately. It was further submitted that custodial interrogation was necessary at this stage and that key electronic devices were yet to be recovered. According to the prosecution, if bail was granted, there was every possibility of the accused tampering with evidence and affecting the investigation.

Also Read: PC Act | Sections 19(3) & (4) Apply Only In Appeals After Cognizance, Not When Sanction Is Questioned At Trial : Supreme Court

Rejecting the request for bail, Magistrate Elsa Catherine George observed that “the ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 75(1)(iv) are prima facie brought out from the available records.” The court stated that making such remarks on social media against the victim of an offence for which investigation is ongoing “cannot be viewed lightly.” It also noted that the investigation had only just begun and that releasing the accused at this stage was likely to impede the course of investigation. The Magistrate added that there was every possibility of similar offences being committed and of tampering with both digital and other evidence. The court also took note that the other accused had not yet been arrested. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, the Magistrate concluded that the accused was not entitled to bail at this point. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.

Appearance

Petitioner/Accused: By Adv. Sri. Abhishek Nair M S

Respondent: A P P

Cause Title: Rahul K. Easwar v. State of Kerala

Case No: CMP 5050/2025

Coram: Elsa Catherine George (Magistrate)