Thiruvananthapuram: The District Sessions Court here on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the anticipatory bail plea of Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil in the rape case registered by the Nemom police. It is learnt that Judge Nazeera S is likely to pronounce the judgement on Thursday.

As per reports, the hearing was held in a closed chamber for one hour and 30 minutes. Judge S Nazeeera and lawyers of the prosecution and the counsel for the MLA were present in the chamber. 

On Tuesday, Rahul’s counsel filed a petition in the Sessions Court seeking in-camera proceedings while considering his anticipatory bail plea. The petition stated that holding the proceedings in open court could have far-reaching consequences on the MLA’s public life. Meanwhile, the prosecution also sought a closed-chamber hearing, citing the need to protect the survivor’s identity.

The Special Investigation Team has submitted its preliminary investigation report before the court in a sealed cover. According to sources, the probe team has reportedly confirmed that the complainant was sexually assaulted. The statement of the doctor who examined the complainant—who had undergone an abortion after taking medication allegedly provided by Rahul Mamkoottathil—has reportedly become crucial in the case.

As per the FIR, the suspended Congress leader raped the complainant multiple times, including during her pregnancy. It states that on March 17, her videos were recorded at her apartment, and he allegedly threatened to release them if their relationship became public. The FIR further noted that despite knowing about the pregnancy, Rahul allegedly raped her at her apartment on April 22 and again over two days in the last week of May at his apartment in Palakkad.

The case has been registered under Sections 64(2)(f) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), 64(2)(h) (rape knowing the woman is pregnant), 64(2)(m) (repeated rape on the same woman), 89 (causing miscarriage without consent), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Police have also invoked Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act for the alleged recording and threat of misuse of private images.

In the anticipatory bail plea, Rahul’s counsel argued that offences under Sections 64 and 89 of the BNS do not apply, claiming the sexual relationship was consensual and that the victim had admitted to taking the tablet on her own.