YouTuber Mukhtar arrested in two criminal cases, police informs Madras High Court

Published 10 June 2026 · local

The Chennai cyber crime cell on Wednesday (June 10, 2026) informed the Madras High Court that YouTuber Mukhtar Ahmed (50) was arrested on Tuesday in

The Chennai cyber crime cell on Wednesday (June 10, 2026) informed the Madras High Court that YouTuber Mukhtar Ahmed (50) was arrested on Tuesday in connection with a criminal case booked against him for having indulged in character assassination by making sexually coloured remarks against a woman functionary of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and also in connection with another criminal case. State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan made the submission before Justice C. Kumarappan during the hearing of a couple of anticipatory bail petitions filed by the YouTuber in two different criminal cases pending against him. When the petitioner’s counsel wanted to know in which case his client had been arrested, the SPP said, he had been arrested in both the cases but was yet to be remanded to judicial custody. The judge recorded the submission and closed both the anticipatory bail petitions. In his advance bail plea in the Chennai cyber crime case, the petitioner had stated that he started his career as a digital content creator and then served as a senior correspondent and news presenter for multiple television news channels.

He, however, accused the mainstream media of not letting journalists be independent. “As several mainstream channels acted according to the will and wish of the ruling party, and never gave the fundamental right of journalists and media organizations to report, investigate, and disseminate information independently,” he chose to become an independent Tamil journalist. Stating that he had started a YouTube channel in July 2024, the petitioner said that his interview with Tiruchi Suriyaa, son of DMK Rajya Sabha member Tiruchi Siva, recorded in the first week of May this year and published on the YouTube channel on May 22, 2026 had become a subject matter of controversy. The petitioner denied the allegation of having indulged in character assassination against the complainant and instead accused her of having lodged a “bogus” complaint with the intention of gaining spotlight and earning fame. He also accused her of being in the habit of seeking publicity.

Submitting screenshots of a couple of tweets by the complainant who had expressed her anguish over the interview and warned of action against the interviewer as well as the interview, the petitioner said, he too had lodged a counter complaint against her but the police chose not to register a case on his complaint. The petitioner also told the court that he was travelling with his family from Vellore to Tiruvannamalai on May 22, 2026 when the video of the interview was uploaded on the YouTube channel by his “media associates” without vetting and without his consent “as per the regular schedule.” He also claimed that a few policemen in plainclothes had intercepted his family on the highway and told him that they intend to arrest him. He was also reportedly told that his family members would be safely dropped at the place they intend to go but he would be taken to Chennai.