Kerala court denies anticipatory bail to Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in rape case

A Kerala court on Thursday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case registered against him by the Nemom Police [Rahul BR @Rahul Mamkootathil v State of Kerala]

Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court District and Sessions Judge Nazeera S passed the order today dismissing Mamkootathil's plea for bail.

The Court held the proceedings in camera (not open to public) after both the MLA and the complainant sought in-camera proceedings.

The Congress party had suspended his membership in August this year after allegations of sexual misconduct were made against him by several women. Mamkootathil also resigned from his position as Youth Congress Chief.

However, he continues to be MLA representing Palakkad constituency.

Mamkootathil moved the Court after the police registered the rape case based on a written complaint submitted by the survivor and her family to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27, accusing the MLA of rape, pregnancy through sexual assault and forced abortion. 

The complainant also alleged that Mamkootathil threatened her by video recording their intimate moments.

Mamkootathil was booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 64 for rape, Section 89 for forced miscarriage, Section 316 for criminal breach of trust, Section 351 for criminal intimidation, Section 329 for trespass and Section 116 for causing grievous hurt.

He was also booked under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act for violation of privacy.

In his petition seeking anticipatory bail, Mamkootathil claimed that the allegations against him are false, politically motivated and intended to tarnish his public standing.

He submitted that there had been no complaints against him before his political rise as a vocal opposition MLA.

Mamkootathil admitted to having a physical relationship with the complainant but contended that it was entirely consensual.

Thus, Section 64 of BNS, which deals with rape, does not apply in this situation, he argued. He placed reliance on chat messages and call records to argue that the complainant voluntarily met him at multiple locations.

Mamkootathil further alleged that the complainant is married to a BJP worker and is cohabiting with him, and this combined with her work in a media organisation, pointed to political motives behind the complaint.

He claimed that the case was being used by the Left government to divert public attention from the ongoing controversy regarding alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple.

Mamkootathil has allegedly been evading the police ever since the registration of the case.

Meanwhile, a fresh allegation has emerged from another woman, a non-resident Indian, who reportedly emailed Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) president Sunny Joseph accusing Mamkootathil of raping her after inviting her to a resort under the pretext of discussing a potential marriage proposal.

Senior counsel Sasthamangalam Ajithkumar along with advocate Sekhar G Thampi appeared for Mamkootathil.