'Willing to cooperate with probe, relationship consensual': Rahul Mamkootathil's HC bail plea

Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil, who has been absconding for the ninth day after Nemom police registered a rape case against him, has filed an anticipatory bail petition before the Kerala High Court, asserting that he is ready to fully cooperate with the investigation. 

Rahul approached the High Court a day after the Thiruvananthapuram District Sessions Court denied his anticipatory bail, and the Congress expelled him from the party’s primary membership. In the petition submitted on Friday, Rahul stated that he is prepared to appear before the investigating officer and explain all circumstances related to the case, provided he is protected from arrest.

The MLA claimed that the relationship between him and the complainant was consensual and that the complaint was filed only after the relationship deteriorated. The petition described allegations regarding miscarriage and forced abortion as an attempt by the investigating agency to “mislead the facts,” stating that Rahul possesses documents to counter these claims.

The plea added that the complainant, who claimed to be separated from her husband, became close to Rahul and maintained frequent communication. Their relationship allegedly strengthened over time. However, recently leaked voice clips and chats between them appeared on social media, which, according to the petition, caused the complainant anxiety about her privacy and led to distrust between the two. The woman then suspected Rahul of leaking the content, resulting in disputes, the plea stated.

According to Rahul, both initially decided not to make the issue public, but as the matter gained media attention, the woman became concerned and chose to disown the relationship. He further alleged that political pressure has influenced the investigation and describes the complaint as “highly belated,” noting that it was submitted directly to the Chief Minister rather than to the police. The MLA also claimed he has not yet received copies of the FIR or First Information Statement despite applying for them.

Rahul reiterated in the plea that he is innocent and argued that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. “The petitioner is prepared to cooperate with the investigation,” it added.

The case was registered based on a complaint forwarded by the Chief Minister’s Office, in which the survivor alleged that Rahul sexually assaulted her, forced her to terminate a pregnancy, and used videos—recorded without her consent—to threaten and coerce her.

He was booked 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.