What is wrong in unmarried man having multiple sexual relationships? Kerala HC on MLA Rahul Mamkootathil's bail plea

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday asked why Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rahul Mamkootathil’s bail plea in a rape case should be rejected solely on the basis of his alleged sexual relationships with multiple women [Rahul BR v State of Kerala]

Justice Kauser Edappagath was dealing with Mamkootathil's plea challenging Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court's order dismissing his anticipatory bail application in the rape case registered by Nemom Police.

His arrest in the case was stayed by the High Court last month.

Today, the Court questioned prosecution's arguments against grant of pre-arrest bail to him.

“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 asked during a hearing today.

The Court made the remark after Director General of Prosecution argued that the cases against Mamkootathil show a pattern of intimidation and similar offences against multiple women.

"This is not a just a case where a consensual relationship turned sour," the Court was told.

Mamkootathil is currently facing three sexual assault cases. He has already been granted bail in two other cases and stands protected from arrest in the present case.

The present bail plea 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.

Today, the Court observed the accused 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.

“We are on the offence of rape under Section 376. Taking nude videography is a different offence which can be considered separately if attracted," the judge said.

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.

"You can't read a particular incident in isolation. The First information Statement (FIS) has to be read right from the beginning of the relationship till it leads to the filing of First Information Report (FIR)," it added.

Following hearing of arguments today, the Court reserved its order on Mamkootathil’s bail plea.

In his anticipatory bail, Mamkootathil admitted to having 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 systematic pattern of violence and coercion. She alleged that Mamkootathil repeatedly subjected her to sexual violence, physical abuse and psychological intimidation.

In the first rape case, Thiruvananthapuram sessions court had denied him bail in December 2025. He later approached the High Court by way of the present petition and got a stay on his arrest.

In the second case, the sessions court accepted his bail plea.

However, after a third complaint was made by a woman, Mamkootathil was arrested by the police on January 11.

He the approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate court, which rejected his bail plea.

Today, he was granted bail in the third case by sessions court.

With this, he is now likely to be released from jail.

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, Giridhan Krishna Kumar, Geethu TA, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith PS, Devika Manoj, and Ashuthosh Kammath.

[Read Live Coverage]