'At Least Final Report Should Be There': Kerala High Court Says FIRs In Other Rape Cases Not Antecedents Against MLA Rahul Mamkootathil

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) reserved its verdict in the anticipatory bail plea preferred by Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in rape and miscarriage case.

Subsequent to the registration of the present crime, two other complaints alleging him of rape have been filed by two different women, which the prosecution argued has to be taken as criminal antecedents.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath however orally remarked today that the other FIRs lodged against the MLA cannot be considered as criminal antecedents while considering the bail plea:

"All cases are in FIR stage, isn't it? Not even in a single case, final report has been filed...Not even a single final report filed. All are under investigation...Law of antecedents is that mere registration of complaint is not sufficient. At least final report should be there...Is there a single FIR which is registered prior to this?...Not a technicality. That is the settled position regarding antecedents...You leave aside all these antecedents. We will take this case alone."

When the prosecution argued that Mamkootathil is a repeat offender whose defence was that the relationship was consensual, the Court orally remarked that it is permissible under law to have as many relationships as one person wants as long as it is consensual and bail cannot be denied on that ground.

"It is legally permissible to have a consensual relationship. He can have how many consensual relationships. What is wrong? He is an unmarried person. Even morally, it is not wrong. He can have as many consensual relations. It is permitted...Even a consensual relationship with a married spouse is permitted under law. Then what is wrong, an unmarried male having consensual relationship with so many persons. What is wrong?," the Court asked.

Mamkootathil is arrayed as the 1st accused in the crime registered by the Nemom Police and 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].

The Court today heard detailed arguments advanced by Advocate S. Rajeev for Mamkootathil, Director General of Prosecution T.A. Shaji and Advocate John S. Ralph appearing for the de facto complainant.

The prosecution submitted that the complainants in the case have been subjected to severe cyber bullying. Mamkootathil, being an influential person and an MLA, can exert his influence in the case.

Rejecting the antecedents argument, the Court orally remarked that if prima facie, the case is believable, then there is no need to look into the antecedents. After perusing the First Information Statement (FIS), the Court orally said that Mamkootathil's sexual relationship with the complainant prima facie appears to be a consensual one.

"It has to be read as a whole...FIS has to be read right from the beginning of the relationship. The whole thing has to be read together. On a whole reading, I find that it appears to be consensual...It appears to be a clear case of consensual sex," it orally remarked.

The Court orally observed that the de facto complainant's case was that initially, the relationship was consensual but became forceful later on. It particularly noted that the de facto complainant went and stayed with Mamkootathil after the alleged incident of forceful intercourse.

However, the Court also orally remarked that the said alleged incident of forceful intercourse that happened on March 17, 2025 was a serious one and custodial interrogation was needed to question the MLA regarding this.

The complainant has also made an allegation that Mamkootathil forced her to undergo an abortion after asking her to conceive his child. Further, it is alleged that he took nude videos of her and threatened to leak it. This was pointed out during arguments by the prosecution.

The Court remarked that the possession of nude video is another offence and can be considered separately. Regarding the forceful miscarriage allegation, the Court orally asked:

"In WhatsApp chat, he is going on compelling to cause miscarriage and he was even ensuring that, making her to come online on video call....These all indicates that it was at his instance miscarriage was caused. Even if Section 376 (rape) goes at best, then this Section 89 BNS (causing a miscarriage without the woman's consent) will...that is again a non-bailable offence..."

Mamkootathil's counsel then told that certain chats have to be produced to address the same. The Court then posted the case for orders, and directed the production of chats between Mamkootathil and the de facto complainant.

On January 11, Mamkootathil was arrested in relation to the third rape case alleged against him. Earlier today, the Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta had granted regular bail to him in the case. He has been granted anticipatory bail by the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court in the second case alleged against him.

The petition is moved by Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar P., T.P. Aravind, and Akshara S.

Advocates V. John Sebastian Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu T.A., Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith P.S., and Devika Manoj are appearing for the complainant.

Director General of Prosecution T.A. Shaji appeared for the State.

Case No: Bail Appl. 14427/2025

Case Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.