SC plea challenges anticipatory bail to Kerala Congress legislator in rape case

Petition in Supreme Court challenges anticipatory bail to Kerala Congress legislator Rahul Mamkootathil in rape case, says allegations are not a political afterthought

A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Kerala Congress legislator Rahul Mamkootathil in an alleged rape case, stating that the allegation is not a “political afterthought.”

The petitioner alleged that the accused is in the habit of developing sexual relationships with women in distress who are in troubled marriages or separated from their spouses.

The petitioner alleged that the accused is in the habit of developing sexual relationships with women in distress who are in troubled marriages or separated from their spouses.

The survivor, who masked her identity as ‘X’ in her petition filed late Friday evening, questioned the high court’s February 12 order, which commented adversely on her allegation by terming the sexual act as “consensual” and conducting a “mini trial” at the stage of granting bail, which is likely to influence the trial against the political leader, currently a member of the legislative assembly in the state.

The petition, filed through advocate Subhash Chandran KR, said, “The high court erred to appreciate that no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room. Only because the survivor had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him will not make her responsible for the sexual assault.”

The allegation against Mamkootathil is that he befriended the victim, who was separated from her husband, and had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. On one occasion, after she became pregnant, he forced her to abort allegedly under threat and coercion.

“The miscarriage was caused by the Respondent No. 1 (accused) without the consent of the petitioner. This establishes a clear prima facie case against the Respondent No. 1, and entirely dispels any suggestion, such as that advanced by the Respondent No. 1 in his bail application, that the matter constitutes a political afterthought or a contrived attempt by the investigating agency to mislead the court,” the petitioner said in her plea.

She said that her consent is not a “blanket license” for all and any whims and fancies of the accused, as it can be denied or withdrawn by the woman at any point in time. In the present case, she alleged that consent for the miscarriage was given as the accused took her nude photographs and threatened her.

The allegation against Mamkootathil is for the offence of rape, among other provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The survivor alleged that the high court failed to appreciate that the accused is in the habit of developing sexual relationships with women in distress who are in troubled marriages or separated from their spouses. “This is evident from the fact that three FIRs have been registered against him, all reflecting a consistent pattern of abuse, torture and coercion, including forced abortion. The information provided by the authorities indicates that, to date, nearly 10 survivors have been identified, including one minor, further demonstrating the grave and ongoing nature of the criminal conduct of Respondent No. 1,” the petition states.

The high court, after going through the submissions, held, “It is difficult to believe that the complainant, being a married and mature woman, would invite the applicant (accused) to her apartment and subsequently travel to Palakkad to stay with him unless she was willing to engage in a physical relationship.” Further, it said that the conversation between the victim and the accused on WhatsApp “reveal an intense personal relationship and do not indicate any element of coercion or force” and formed a prima facie view that “these circumstances point towards the likelihood of consensual sexual intercourse” for the acts alleged between April 22, 2025 and the end of May 2025.

“The above adverse remarks were not warranted and ought not to have been a ground for granting pre-arrest bail,” the survivor told the top court, adding further, “The above observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the petitioner.”

It further sought to question the high court order for “pre-judging” the evidentiary value of the allegation, which is the job of the trial court, and said, “While passing the judgment granting pre-arrest bail to the Respondent No. 1, the high court erred in conducting a mini-trial of the issues involved.”

Last month, the top court had the occasion to consider a petition filed by lawyer Deepa Joseph, who was called for questioning by the police for naming and defaming the survivor on social media. The top court refused to entertain her plea while deprecating her for the language used for the survivor despite being a woman lawyer.

The survivor’s petition is expected to be taken up by the top court next week.