Kerala Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MLA Rahul Mamkootathil In Rape Case

The Principle District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram on Thursday (December 4) dismissed the anticipatory bail plea moved by Rahul Mamkootathil, Member of Legislative Assembly from Palakkad constituency, in a rape and miscarriage case.

Smt. Nazeera S., Principal District and Sessions Judge, passed the order today in open court. The Court held the proceedings in-camera, accepting Mamkootathil's application praying for the same.

"The allegation against the petitioner is not simply an allegation of rape and it cannot be glorified as a broken consensual relationship. The main allegation rests on the fact that the petitioner had prompted the victim to cause miscarriage...Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, it appears that granting the petitioner with an order of pre-arrest bail will adversely affect the investigation. If an order of pre-arrest bail is granted, he is likely to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Considering all these aspects, this court is not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner," the Court had observed.

The prosecution allegation was that he befriended the victim through social media while she was living separately from her husband and offered her psychological support, promising a lasting relationship. It is also alleged that Mamkootathil convinced the victim to have a child with him and forcefully had sexual intercourse with her, with an intention of impregnating her. Thereafter, he took her nude videos and threatened her, it is alleged.

It is further alleged that he committed rape on her even after she became pregnant and compelled her to have an abortion by making her take abortion pills, which were handed over by Mamkootathil's friend, the 2nd accused in the case.

Mamkootathil is accused of the offences under the Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m) [Rape], 89 [Causing miscarriage without woman's consent], 115(2) [Voluntarily causing hurt], 351(3) [Criminal intimidation], 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act [Punishment for violation of privacy].

However, Mamkootathil argued that the case was a false and politically motivated one, and considering the delay in preferring the complaint, it was clear that it was raised right before the upcoming general elections to influence the public. He also submitted that the sexual relation between himself and the victim was consensual and the present complaint was initiated due to compulsion from the rival political parties.

Mamkootathil also argued that the offence on the false promise of marriage do not stand due to the fact that the victim was already married. But the Court opined that the main allegation was regarding rape and not entering sexual relations on the false promise of marriage.

To counter the version of the victim that she had resided with her husband for only 4 days before marital problem ensued, he brought as evidence a Facebook photo of the victim along with her husband, posted recently. However, the Court noted that though the date of posting is mentioned, there is nothing to show when the photo was actually taken.

"Even if it is considered for a moment that their marital relationship continued for a further period than as stated by the victim or that it is still continuing, so far as the allegation against the petitioner is concerned, it is of little relevance," the Court added.

As per the victim, she was forced to consume the abortion pills due to threats levelled by Mamkootathil and after consuming them, she developed some health issues for which she had to consult a gynaecologist. The gynaecologist's report was appended with the statement given by her to the Magistrate.

Considering the evidence brought on record, the Court observed that these make out a prima facie case against Mamkootathil with respect to the miscarriage charges.

"It is seen from the materials produced by the learned Public Prosecutor that the mobile phone of the victim was seized by the Investigating Officer and mahazar was prepared regarding the Whatsapp chat between the petitioner and the defacto complainant in that phone, including the voice clips. A perusal of the said mahazar throws light on the fact that there was a detailed discussion between the petitioner and the defacto complainant regarding the conception of a child and thereafter when the victim was conceived how the petitioner was insisting for termination of pregnancy. It is also seen therefrom that the victim was expressing her emotions to keep her child in the womb and her emotional connection with the life growing in her womb. Those chats also indicate her dilemma to choose between the insistence of the petitioner for terminating the pregnancy and her wish to keep the child. So, there is prima facie materials to show the allegations against the petitioner."

With respect to the contention that another allegation of rape had been made out against Mamkootathil by another woman, the Court thought it need not be considered at this point of time. It remarked:

"Further, another point which comes for consideration is based on a complaint given as against the petitioner by another victim...As the said complaint and the case registered on the basis of the said complaint is in its preliminary stage of investigation, it is not considered in this case as a matter of antecedents."

Considering the aspect of the complaint being a frivolous and politically-motivated one, the Court had observed:

"In the backdrop of pursuing election and in view of the fact that the petitioner being a prominent politician, lodging the complaint to ignite a controversy cannot be ruled out. This Court is not oblivious of the scenario or backdrop upon which this complaint is initiated after a considerable delay. However, in view of the materials placed by the prosecution, which prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged, it appears that the exceptional jurisdiction to grant a pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked in this case."

Today, another interim application was filed by Mamkootathil seeking interim protection from arrest. Dismissing the same, the Court pronounced:

"In view of the order passed in this Crl.M.C., the Crl.M.P is also dismissed."

Yesterday, it had heard detailed arguments raised by the senior counsel representing Mamkootathil and the prosecutor. The case was adjourned to today, granting time to the prosecution to produce certain documents that are relied upon by it.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 3585/ 2025

Case Title: Rahul B.R. @ Rahul Mamkootathil v. State of Kerala

Counsel for the petitioner: Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar (Sr.), Sekhar G. Thampi

Counsel for the respondent: Dr. T. Geenakumari - Public Prosecutor