The Kerala High Court questioned whether an unmarried man having multiple consensual sexual relationships can be a ground to deny bail to Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case. The Court asked the prosecution to clarify whether the alleged incident was consensual or forced, and reserved its order on his anticipatory bail plea.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday questioned why the anticipatory bail plea of MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case should be rejected only because he allegedly had sexual relationships with multiple women.
The Court made this observation while hearing Mamkootathil’s petition challenging the order of the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court, which had earlier rejected his pre-arrest bail plea in a rape case registered by the Nemom Police.
ALSO READ: Third Rape Case: Kerala Court Denies Bail to Ex-Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil
Justice Kauser Edappagath was hearing the matter. The High Court had already stayed Mamkootathil’s arrest in this case last month. During the hearing on Wednesday, the Court closely examined the prosecution’s arguments opposing the grant of anticipatory bail.
While questioning the prosecution, the Court observed,
“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 made this remark after the Director General of Prosecution argued that the cases against Mamkootathil showed a clear pattern of intimidation and similar offences involving multiple women. The prosecution submitted that this was not a simple case where a consensual relationship later turned bitter.
The prosecution stated before the Court,
“This is not a just a case where a consensual relationship turned sour.”
The Court, however, questioned the legal basis of denying bail merely due to multiple consensual relationships and reiterated its concern by observing,
“What is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationship with many persons?”
At present, Mamkootathil is facing three sexual assault cases. He has already been granted bail in two cases and continues to enjoy protection from arrest in the present matter.
The anticipatory bail plea currently before the High Court relates to a written complaint submitted directly to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27, 2025, by a woman and her family. The complaint accused the MLA of rape, causing pregnancy through sexual assault, and forcing her to undergo an abortion.
The complainant also alleged that Mamkootathil secretly recorded intimate videos without her consent and later threatened to make them public if she did not follow his demands.
During the hearing, the High Court noted that both the accused and the complainant were in a consensual relationship before the alleged incident dated March 17, 2025. The Court further observed that the complainant herself had admitted that after the alleged incident, she travelled to Palakkad, stayed with Mamkootathil for two days, and had consensual sex with him.
Taking note of this statement, the Court asked the prosecution to clearly explain whether the act in question amounted to consensual sex or forced sex.
Justice Edappagath observed,
“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 prosecution maintained that it was a case of forced sex and claimed that the complainant was threatened using the video recordings. However, the Court said that the issue of video recording could be examined independently.
The Court further observed, “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).”
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Kerala High Court reserved its order on Mamkootathil’s anticipatory bail plea.
In his bail application, Mamkootathil admitted that he had a physical relationship with the complainant but claimed it was entirely consensual. On the other hand, the complainant alleged that the MLA was repeatedly trying to mislead the Court by presenting distorted facts.
She claimed that the abuse was not a single incident but part of a systematic pattern of violence, coercion, and intimidation. According to her, Mamkootathil repeatedly subjected her to sexual violence, physical abuse, and psychological pressure.
Earlier, in December 2025, the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court had denied Mamkootathil bail in the first rape case. He later approached the High Court, which stayed his arrest. In the second case, the Sessions Court allowed his bail plea.
After a third complaint was filed, Mamkootathil was arrested on January 11. His bail plea was initially rejected by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. However, on Wednesday, the Sessions Court granted him bail in the third case, making his release from jail likely.
Following the allegations, the Congress party suspended Mamkootathil’s membership in August last year. He later resigned from his post as Youth Congress Chief. Despite this, he continues to serve as the MLA from the 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.
“Prolonged Custody Unnecessary” — Kerala Sessions Court Grants Bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Third Rape Case
In a related development, a Sessions Court in Kerala’s Pathanamthitta district on Wednesday granted bail to Rahul Mamkootathil in connection with a third rape case registered against him recently. The bail order was passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge N Harikumar.
Also Read: Kerala Govt Challenges Anticipatory Bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Second Rape Case
Mamkootathil had moved the Sessions Court after a magistrate court dismissed his bail plea last week, holding that a prima facie case of rape was made out. However, the Sessions Court took a different view and observed that Mamkootathil could be released on bail.
The court noted that there was a delay in filing the complaint and also took into account that there was continued communication between Mamkootathil and the complainant even after the alleged incident. It observed that a full-fledged trial would be required to determine the true nature of their relationship.
The Sessions Court further observed that the chances of Mamkootathil intimidating the complainant were minimal since the woman is currently staying abroad. It also noted that Mamkootathil had been in judicial custody for over 18 days, that custodial interrogation had already been completed, and that the collection of evidence was substantially over.
The court also took note of the fact that Mamkootathil had complied with all conditions imposed earlier when he was granted anticipatory bail in another rape case involving similar allegations. It added that there was no likelihood of him absconding, considering that he is a public figure and an elected MLA.
The Sessions Court observed,
“Furthermore, the petitioner being a prominent political leader and an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly, there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. Considering the above, this court is of the view that, prolonged detention of the petitioner is unnecessary for the purpose of completing the investigation,”
Mamkootathil was arrested on January 11, 2026, from a hotel in Palakkad in connection with a complaint filed by a woman from Thiruvalla, who alleged that he sexually assaulted her in 2024.
According to the prosecution, Mamkootathil had befriended the complainant through social media and allegedly induced her to book a hotel room under the pretext of a private discussion, where he is accused of forcibly engaging in sexual acts.
ALSO READ: Rape Case Against MLA: Kerala HC Extends Interim Protection to Rahul Mamkootathil
The complainant further alleged that she became pregnant due to the assault and later suffered a miscarriage. Mamkootathil, however, denied all allegations and claimed that the relationship was consensual.
He stated that he was unaware that the complainant was married and said he ended the relationship once he came to know of her marital status. He also claimed that the case was filed to damage his public image.
His counsel argued that the FIR suffered from procedural irregularities, that the essential ingredients of rape were not made out even if the allegations were accepted, and that the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to him.
Reference was also made to WhatsApp chats and other communications to show that the relationship continued cordially even after the alleged incident.
Case Title:
Rahul BR v State of Kerala
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On MLA Rahul Mamkootathil
