The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and former Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil in the first of three rape cases he is facing. [Rahul BR v State of Kerala & ors].Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order this morning.The judge also imposed strict conditions while granting Mamkootathil relief today, including that he must produce his mobile phone before the investigating officer of the police on February 16, 2026, when he shall appear for interrogation at 10 AM.The Court added that the police can interrogate him over the next three days from 10 AM to 4 PM.He has been directed to appear before the IO every second Saturday as well, between 10 and 11 AM.Further, the MLA has been ordered not to leave the country and to surrender his passport before the jurisdictional magistrate. The Court has warned him not to influence witnesses either. Mamkootathil was ordered to cooperate with the probe and undergo a medical examination or potency test if needed..Mamkootathil had already secured bail in the remaining two rape cases that he currently faces. The plea on which today's order was passed challenged the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court's refusal to grant him anticipatory bail in a rape case registered by the Nemom Police. His arrest in this case was stayed by the High Court in December 2025..During later hearings, the High Court had questioned the prosecution's arguments against the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Palakkad MLA.“Even consensual relationship with a married spouse is permitted under law, then what is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationship with so many persons? What is wrong and because of that how can this bail be rejected,” the Court had asked. .In today's order, the Court noted that the complainant herself had admitted to being in an intimate relationship with the MLA earlier and that she had visited him after the alleged rape incident and stayed with him for two days. The Court opined that this prima facie suggested that she was in a consensual sexual relationship with him.The Court emphasised that not every relationship that has turned sour could be converted into rape. It proceeded to grant Mamkootathil anticipatory bail. "Not every instance of consensual sexual intercourse in a failed relationship can be characterised as rape. Where two adults voluntarily consent to engage in sexual relations and continue such activity over a prolonged period, it can only be construed as an act of mutual choice or promiscuity, not as sexual assault by one partner against the other. The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the recent trend of invoking rape laws to criminalise the breakdown of consensual relationships," the Court said..The Court also addressed allegations that the MLA had forced the complainant to get an abortion. It observed that WhatsApp chats between the complainant and Mamkootathil suggested that she voluntarily consumed the abortion pills. The Court, however, added that whether such consent for consuming the pills was forced or coerced through undue influence would be a matter to be examined during trial..The case pertains to a written complaint submitted directly to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27, 2025, by a woman and her family, accusing the MLA of rape, pregnancy through sexual assault and forced abortion.She also alleged that Mamkootathil recorded their intimate videos without her consent and threatened to circulate them if she did not comply with his demands..During the anticipatory bail hearings, the High Court observed that the Mamkootathil and the complainant had been in a consensual relationship before the alleged incident of March 17, 2025. The survivor herself admitted that she later went to Palakkad after the alleged incident, stayed with Mamkootathil for two days and had consensual sex, the Court noted. Considering the complainant's own statement, the Court asked the prosecution to clarify whether the alleged act in question was consensual sex or forced sex.The prosecution said that it was a case of forced sex and that Mamkootathil had threatened the complainant using the video recordings. However, the Court opined that the aspect of video recordings can be considered separately..In his anticipatory bail plea, Mamkootathil had admitted to having a physical relationship with the complainant but claimed that it was entirely consensual. However, the complainant stated that the MLA repeatedly attempted to mislead the Court by presenting distorted versions of the event.She alleged that the abuse she suffered was not a one-time incident but part of a systematic pattern of violence and coercion. She alleged that Mamkootathil repeatedly subjected her to sexual violence, physical abuse and psychological intimidation. .Following the allegations against him, the Congress party suspended Mamkootathil's membership in August last year. He later resigned from his position as Youth Congress Chief. However, he continues to serve as the MLA representing Palakkad constituency..Mamkootathil was represented before the High Court by advocates S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Anilkumar CR, Sarath KP, KS Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, TP Aravind and Maheshwar P.The complainant was represented by advocates John S Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu TA, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith PS, Devika Manoj, and Ashuthosh Kammath..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
