Manjummel Boys director Chidambaram gets bail in sexual harassment case
Film Manjummel Boys director Chidambaram, facing sexual harassment charges, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Ernakulam District and Sessions Court. Bail comes with strict conditions set by the court.
Chidambaram, Malayalam film director sweet boyThe anticipatory bail was granted by the District and Sessions Court in Ernakulam on Saturday, March 7. The bail was granted following a complaint alleging sexual harassment following an incident reported in May 2022. The court imposed conditions, including that Chidambaram should cooperate with the investigation, not tamper with evidence and refrain from attempts to influence witnesses.
❮❯
The crime was registered by Ernakulam South Police Station on February 28 based on the statement of the complainant. Identified as an actor, she claimed that the filmmaker abused her in an apartment in Kochi in 2022.
Authorities have officially charged the director under Section 74 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and Section 75 (sexual assault offence) of the Indian Code of Justice (BNS), which regulates criminal offenses in India related to assault or criminal force on a woman, sexual harassment and insulting the modesty of a woman.
Chidambaram’s bail application was filed on March 3 and the court reserved its decision after hearing both the sides.
Chidambaram filed counter claim
In his petition, Chidambaram said he met the complainant during his appearance, Live Law reported. sweet boyWhere he was considered for a role. He argued that his behavior was professional and alleged that the complainant launched a campaign to tarnish his reputation.
He further alleged that the complainant posted a reel on Instagram alleging sexual harassment and she had filed a damages suit against him in the Bombay High Court. An interim order was granted in December 2025 barring him from publishing defamatory news.
Film producer has cited delay in reporting in the petition
According to Chidambaram, the present case was made to counter the legal consequences of publishing defamatory material. He pointed to a four-year delay in reporting the case and said he had no criminal history.
While granting bail, the court cited lack of previous criminal record and delay in filing the petition. “No criminal history is stated against the petitioner. The nature of the allegations do not suggest custodial interrogation of the petitioner. The incident was of the year 2022. There is a delay of 4 years in filing the petition.”
The court also cited the Bombay High Court order against the complainant, restraining him from publishing defamatory material on any platform. “The Investigating Officer stated that she is not cooperating in the investigation. Considering all the above aspects, I am of the view that this is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the BNSS to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”
The court has also ordered Chidambaram to comply with the police investigation.
