Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil's Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Challenged In Supreme Court

The complainant who alleged that Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil raped her and caused miscarriage of her pregnancy, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment of February 12, granting anticipatory bail to him.

The complainant has in particular taken objection to the High Court's remarks which suggested that the relationship was prima facie consensual.

This is the first of the three rape cases registered against the ex-Congress legislator. This crime was registered at Nemom Police Station on November 28, 2025 for offences under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to rape [ Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m)], causing miscarriage without consent (S.89) and criminal intimidation(S.115(2) and 351(3)), along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

According to the complainant, the High Court exceeded the permissible scope of consideration in an anticipatory bail application by entering into a detailed analysis of the evidence and recording findings that could prejudice the trial.

The plea specifically contests certain observations made by the High Court suggesting that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual. The High Court had noted that the complainant had visited the accused's flat and stayed there for two days after the alleged assault, observing that such conduct “prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual sexual relationship.”

The court also relied on WhatsApp chats between the parties and with a co-accused to conclude that the material on record indicated an intense personal relationship and that the complainant appeared to have voluntarily consumed abortion pills supplied by the co-accused.

The complainant argues that these remarks effectively cast doubts on her character and go beyond the limited enquiry permissible while deciding a bail application.

The petition contends that the High Court undertook a “mini-trial” by assessing the admissibility and weight of evidence, which is impermissible at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), the plea states that courts should avoid detailed examination of evidence while deciding bail and confine themselves to a prima facie assessment.

It further argues that by analysing WhatsApp chats, voice clips and the surrounding circumstances in detail, the High Court effectively pre-judged issues that should be determined during trial.

The complainant also relies on the Supreme Court's decision in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), which cautioned courts against using reasoning that diminishes the gravity of sexual offences or casts aspersions on the survivor's character while granting bail.

According to the plea, the High Court's reasoning that the complainant visited the accused after the alleged incident or maintained a personal relationship with him cannot be used to infer consent.

The petition emphasises that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, consent must be a clear and voluntary agreement and that a past relationship does not amount to blanket consent for sexual acts.

The complainant alleges that Mamkoottathil repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault and later forced her to terminate a pregnancy by threatening to leak intimate videos and by exerting emotional pressure.

It is claimed that the accused insisted on abortion and that the complainant ultimately consumed abortifacient pills under coercion and threats of suicide.

The plea argues that such conduct squarely attracts the offence of causing miscarriage without consent under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petition also points out that multiple FIRs relating to sexual offences are pending against the MLA, including cases registered by the Crime Branch. It claims that the High Court failed to consider these factors while granting anticipatory bail.

It further alleges that the complainant has faced sustained online harassment by individuals allegedly linked to the accused, including attempts to reveal her identity on social media. The petitioner alleges that since the accused is a prominent politician and a sitting MLA, he can abuse his power and position to silence her, and hence, the grant of pre-arrest bail to him will impede the investigation.

The petition has been filed through AoR Subhash Chandran KR

Case : XXXX v. Rahul BR and others.