Kochi morphing case: Pocso charges invoked against two accused, police seek to freeze bank account
Police have invoked Pocso provisions against two accused in the Thrikkakara morphing case and sought to freeze an account allegedly used to collect money, according to The New Indian Express.
Police have invoked provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act against two accused in the Thrikkakara morphing case after child sexual abuse material was allegedly found on their phones, The New Indian Express reported. The accused are Sreehari, a Bharat Mata College student and the first accused, and Saneesh, the second accused. Saneesh allegedly shared images originally circulated by Sreehari, the report said.
In a related development, police have sought the freezing of a bank account allegedly used by Saneesh to collect money from members of a Telegram group, the newspaper reported. The case is at the charging stage, according to the report. The investigation is ongoing, and the cause of the allegations has not been determined.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 13:37current
First published.
- Version 19 Sept 2026, 03:48
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.