No notice before arrest: TVM court cites police lapse to grant bail for RSS ideologue

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which granted bail to RSS ideologue T G Mohandas in the inflammatory comment case, flagged a serious lapse on part of the police in not issuing a notice to him.

In the bail plea filed by his counsel Advocate Sekhar G Thampi, it was cited that no notice under section 35(3) of the BNSS was served prior to his arrest. The counsel called this act against the rule of law and termed it 'politically motivated'.

The BNSS provision mandates that the police officer should issue a notice directing the person, against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, to appear before her/him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice, if the arrest was not required.

Mohandas' counsel quoted the Supreme Court verdict on Satender Kumar Antil v Central Bureau of Investigation in 2026, which held that compliance with Section 35 of the BNSS was mandatory and that arrest ought to be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances, for which reasons were required to be recorded.

The Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was not necessary in a case where there was a likelihood of the accused absconding. It was submitted that the investigating officer had specifically recorded that, if the notice were issued to the accused, there was a possibility of the accused absconding, destroying digital evidence and influencing the witness.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mithun Gopi G S, noted that the materials placed before the Court did not disclose any specific circumstance indicating that the accused was attempting to evade the investigation or was likely to abscond. "The fact that the investigating agency was able to locate the accused at his known residential address and conduct a search there is, in the circumstances, inconsistent with such apprehension," the Judge observed.

The Court also ruled out any specific or cogent circumstance to show that Mohandas' immediate arrest was necessary to preserve or secure such evidence. "The investigating agency had already located the premises and was in a position to proceed with the investigation and secure the relevant material. 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 Judge said in the order.

The statutory requirement was therefore attracted in the present case and the failure of the investigating agency to issue the notice has not been satisfactorily justified, the Judge said, adding that the mere assertion that the investigation was at an initial stage, that further witnesses were yet to be examined, that the involvement of other accused was to be ascertained, or that the owner of the YouTube channel 'Pathrika' was yet to be identified, did not furnish sufficient justification for keeping the accused in judicial custody.

As part of the bail condition, Mohandas will appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation for three days starting Tuesday between 10 am and 1 pm. Mohandas was taken into custody from his residence in Kochi on Sunday by the Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Crime police.