Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Rape and Coerced Abortion Case
In a significant development, the Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, who faces serious allegations of rape and coerced termination of pregnancy. The case originated from a complaint filed by a television journalist, leading to intense legal scrutiny and public attention.
Court Observations and Bail Conditions
Justice Kauser Edappagath presided over the case and allowed Mamkootathil's plea for pre-arrest bail, which was registered at the Nemom police station in Thiruvananthapuram. The court made several critical observations while delivering the judgment.
The court noted that the sexual relationship between the parties appeared to have been consensual, based on evidence presented during the hearing. This finding played a crucial role in the decision to grant bail.
The High Court imposed specific conditions for the bail:
- Mamkootathil must appear before the investigating officer at 10 AM on February 16
- He must surrender his mobile phones to authorities
- The investigating officer has permission to interrogate him over three days with adequate intervals
- During this interrogation period, he will be deemed to be in custody for facilitating medical examinations
- If arrest becomes necessary afterward, he will be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs 1 lakh with two solvent sureties for the same amount
- He must appear before the investigating officer every second Saturday until further court orders
Background of the Case
The controversy began when a 27-year-old woman submitted a petition to the chief minister detailing her allegations against the MLA. The woman, who was living separately from her husband due to marital discord, made several serious claims:
- Mamkootathil sexually assaulted her on April 22, 2025
- He subsequently coerced her into terminating the resulting pregnancy by procuring abortion pills
- He threatened her and recorded nude images on his mobile phone
In his defense, Mamkootathil contended that what began as a romantic relationship had been transformed into a rape case after the relationship deteriorated. He maintained that their interactions were consensual throughout their association.
Court's Analysis of Evidence
The High Court conducted a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both sides. Several factors influenced the court's decision:
Despite the complainant's claim of sexual assault on April 22, 2025, and subsequent coerced pregnancy termination, the court noted that she voluntarily visited Mamkootathil's flat in Palakkad during the last week of May 2025. She stayed there for two days, which the court considered significant in evaluating the nature of their relationship.
WhatsApp chats exchanged between the parties revealed what the court described as "an intense personal relationship" that showed no evidence of coercion or force. The communications suggested mutual engagement rather than one-sided pressure.
However, the court clarified that the ultimate determination of whether the relationship was consensual and whether the pregnancy termination was coercive would depend on evidence presented during the full trial. These questions remain unresolved and subject to further judicial examination.
Legal Principles and Precedents
The prosecution argued that three additional FIRs had been registered against Mamkootathil in similar cases, suggesting a pattern of behavior. The High Court addressed this argument directly, observing that all these cases were registered after the present case and therefore could not be treated as criminal antecedents for the current proceedings.
The court made several important legal pronouncements during the judgment:
"The moral virtues, or lack thereof, of a person accused of an offence cannot be the criterion for determining the legality of any issue raised against him before a court of law." This statement emphasized the distinction between legal proceedings and moral judgments.
The court further clarified that law and morality are not equivalent, establishing a clear boundary between legal standards and ethical considerations.
In a significant observation about sexual relationships, the court stated: "Not every instance of consensual sexual intercourse in a failed relationship can be characterised as rape." The judgment continued: "Where two adults voluntarily engage in sexual relations over a prolonged period, such conduct may be construed as a matter of mutual choice rather than sexual assault by one partner against the other."
This case continues to develop as both sides prepare for further legal proceedings, with the bail conditions establishing the framework for ongoing investigation while protecting the accused's rights during the judicial process.
