Thiruvananthapuram: The Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court on Thursday said that consent given under fear or threat is not valid, as it dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a case involving multiple sexual offences against a woman. The court also noted that prima facie evidence indicates the MLA's involvement in the case, registered at Nemom Police Station, which includes allegations of repeated rape, forced miscarriage, and the recording of nude videos.

Sessions Judge Nazeera S observed that while frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions must be considered, the materials placed before the court indicated the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences. “In the backdrop of the forthcoming election and the petitioner’s standing as a prominent politician, the possibility of a complaint aimed at igniting controversy cannot be ruled out. However, the materials produced prima facie show the petitioner’s involvement, and the exceptional jurisdiction to grant pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked,” the order stated.

The court further noted that even if the initial relationship appeared consensual, subsequent acts—such as threats, coercion to terminate pregnancy, and taking nude videos—constituted serious offences. The judge reiterated that consent given under fear or threat is not valid. The court added that delays in reporting sexual offences are not uncommon, given fear, stigma, and the survivor’s vulnerability. It also highlighted the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, making anticipatory bail untenable.

According to the prosecution, the complainant befriended the MLA while living separately from her husband. The petitioner allegedly provided emotional support and assurances of a long-term relationship, which later escalated into repeated sexual assault and pressure to undergo a miscarriage. The prosecution argued that evidence including chat records, voice notes, and mobile phone data supported the allegations of repeated assault and coercion. They maintained that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover further digital evidence.

The defence argued that the relationship was consensual and that she had voluntarily taken abortion pills, negating the offence under Section 89. The counsel also pointed to audio clips and social media posts allegedly showing that the complainant had at times threatened the accused and consented under pressure from the employer.

The court ultimately rejected the anticipatory bail application, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.