'Manjummel Boys' director gets bail in sexual assault case
What's the story
Chidambaram aka Chidambaram S. Poduval, the director of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court. The decision came after a complaint of sexual harassment was filed against him earlier this month regarding an incident from May 2022. The court imposed strict conditions on the bail, including cooperation with the investigation and no tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Charges filed
Details of the complaint
The Ernakulam South Police Station registered a case on February 28 based on the complainant's statement. The complainant, an actor, accused Chidambaram of misbehaving with her at a Kochi apartment in 2022. The director has been charged under Section 74 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and Section 75 (sexual harassment offenses) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Defense strategy
Claims by Chidambaram
In his bail application, Chidambaram claimed he met the complainant during the making of Manjummel Boys, where she was considered for a role. He alleged that his behavior was professional and accused the complainant of launching a campaign to defame him. He also claimed that she posted an Instagram Reel accusing him of sexual assault and said he had filed a damage suit against her in the Bombay High Court.
Bail decision
Court grants bail considering these factors
The court granted bail on March 7, Live Law reported on Monday, considering Chidambaram's lack of previous criminal records and the delay in filing the petition. The judge noted, "No criminal antecedents are pointed out against the petitioner. The nature of allegations does not suggest custodial interrogation of the petitioner." "The incident was in the year 2022. There is a delay of 4 years in filing the petition."
Investigation hindrance
Complainant was not cooperating with the investigation
The court also took into account the Bombay High Court's December 2025 interim order against the complainant, which restrained her from publishing any defamatory content on any platform. "The investigating officer reported that she was not cooperating with the investigation." "Considering all the above said aspects, I am of the view that this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction vested u/s.482 of BNSS to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner," observed the court.