Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil Secures Bail in Third Rape Case with Stringent Conditions
In a significant legal development, Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil has been granted bail in his third rape case by the Pathanamthitta sessions court on Wednesday. The 36-year-old politician, who has been in judicial custody since his arrest on January 11, received bail under strict conditions imposed by Judge N Harikumar.
Stringent Bail Conditions Imposed by Court
The court has mandated that Mamkootathil execute a bail bond of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties. Additionally, he must appear before the investigating officer every Saturday between 10 am and noon for three months or until the submission of the final report, whichever comes earlier. The court has explicitly prohibited him from intimidating or influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or interfering with the ongoing investigation.
"The accused must cooperate fully with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer whenever called in writing," the court order emphasized. Mamkootathil faces charges under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with rape and criminal intimidation respectively.
Legal Arguments Challenging FIR Registration
Mamkootathil's legal team, comprising advocates Sasthamangalam Ajith Kumar, Abhilash Chandran, and Sekhar G Thampi, presented compelling arguments challenging the validity of the FIR registration. They invoked provision 173 (1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires that a person providing information through electronic communication must sign the statement within three days.
The survivor, who was in Canada, gave her statement on January 9 via the Zoom videotelephony platform. While the statement was scanned and sent to her for signature, Mamkootathil's bail plea argued that she did not sign the first information statement in front of any authority within the mandated three-day period. Furthermore, the plea highlighted that the survivor's signature was not digital, raising questions about how it was obtained.
Court Observations on Procedural Irregularities
The sessions court noted that the records failed to demonstrate compliance with the signature requirement. "This aspect casts a shadow on the procedural regularity surrounding the registration of the FIR and it is a factor which cannot be completely ignored while considering the present application for bail," the court observed.
The court also raised questions about the survivor's relationship with Mamkootathil, noting that she was married yet allegedly entered into a lawful marriage with the petitioner as promised. According to the survivor's statements, she voluntarily met Mamkootathil for private interactions despite never having met him in person previously, with their acquaintance confined to social media communication.
Survivor's Conduct and Delay in Reporting
The court order revealed several noteworthy aspects of the survivor's conduct. She continued to maintain contact with Mamkootathil even after the alleged incident and returned to her native place following a miscarriage without immediately initiating criminal proceedings. The survivor maintained cordial communication with Mamkootathil even after returning to Canada, according to the court documents.
Perhaps most significantly, the court noted that the survivor did not provide any specific explanation for the approximately 21-month delay in approaching the police. This delay in furnishing the first information assumed considerable relevance in the court's consideration of the bail application.
The legal proceedings continue as the investigation progresses, with Mamkootathil now required to adhere strictly to the bail conditions while the case moves forward through the judicial system.
