Today, on 12th February, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to MLA and former Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil in the first rape case, as Justice Kauser Edappagath imposed strict conditions, including phone submission, biweekly appearance, passport surrender, ban, and against influencing witnesses.
KERALA: The Kerala High Court granted Anticipatory bail to Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and former Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil in the first of three rape cases against him. The order was issued by Justice Kauser Edappagath.
While granting Mamkootathil relief, the judge set several strict conditions, including that he must present his mobile phone to the investigating officer and appear for questioning every second Saturday between 10 and 11 AM. Additionally, he has been ordered not to leave the country and must surrender his passport to the jurisdictional magistrate. The Court also cautioned him against influencing any witnesses.
ALSO READ: Kerala Govt Challenges Anticipatory Bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Second Rape Case
Mamkootathil is required to cooperate with the investigation and may undergo a medical examination if necessary. The Court specified that he should be available for interrogation by the police over the next three days, from 10 AM to 4 PM.
He had previously obtained bail in the other two rape cases currently against him.
The bail order addressed a plea challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court’s denial of anticipatory bail in a case lodged by the Nemom Police. The High Court placed a stay on his arrest in this matter in December 2025.
During subsequent hearings, the High Court questioned the prosecution’s objections to granting pre-arrest bail to the MLA from Palakkad.
The Court remarked,
“Even a consensual relationship with a married spouse is permitted under law, then what is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationships with multiple persons? What is wrong, and how can this bail be denied?”
The case originated from a written complaint directly submitted to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27, 2025, by a woman and her family, accusing the MLA of rape, resulting pregnancy from sexual assault, and forced abortion. She also alleged that Mamkootathil recorded their intimate moments without consent and threatened to share the videos if she did not comply with his demands.
During the anticipatory bail hearings, the Court noted that Mamkootathil and the complainant had a consensual relationship prior to the alleged incident on March 17, 2025. The survivor admitted that she later visited Palakkad, stayed with Mamkootathil for two days, and had consensual sex with him, prompting the Court to ask the prosecution to clarify whether the alleged act constituted consensual or forced sex.
The prosecution contended that the situation involved forced sex and that Mamkootathil had threatened the complainant using the video recordings. However, the Court suggested that the matter of the recordings could be evaluated separately.
Also Read: Cheating Case | Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Goa MLA Jit Arolkar
In his plea for anticipatory bail, Mamkootathil acknowledged a physical relationship with the complainant but asserted that it was entirely consensual. The complainant countered that he repeatedly attempted to mislead the Court with distorted accounts of events, claiming that the abuse she experienced was part of a systematic pattern of violence and coercion. She alleged that Mamkootathil had subjected her to consistent sexual violence, physical abuse, and psychological intimidation.
In light of the allegations, the Congress party suspended Mamkootathil’s membership in August of last year. He subsequently resigned from his role as Youth Congress Chief but continues to serve as the MLA for the Palakkad constituency.
Mamkootathil was represented in the High Court by advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Anilkumar C.R., Sarath K.P., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P. Aravind, and Maheshwar P. The complainant was represented by advocates John S. Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Giridhan Krishna Kumar, Geethu T.A., Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith P.S., Devika Manoj, and Ashuthosh Kammath.
CASE TITLE: Rahul BR v State of Kerala
Read Live Coverage: