‘Non-committed relationship continued even after alleged incident’: Court finds no prima facie evidence of rape against Rahul in Crime Branch case

The Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram on Wednesday observed that there was no prima facie material to support the rape allegation made against Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil by a 23-year-old woman. The court made the remark while granting him anticipatory bail in the case registered by the State Crime Branch. It also noted that the possibility of the complaint—initially submitted to KPCC president Sunny Joseph and later forwarded to the State Police Chief—being filed under pressure “cannot be ruled out.” The order was issued by Judge Nazeera S.

The Crime Branch had registered a case based on the woman’s allegation that Rahul raped her after promising to marry her. According to the complaint, Rahul contacted her in 2023 through Instagram and later on Telegram while she was studying outside Kerala. He allegedly insisted on meeting her during a vacation, took her to a secluded homestay with his friend Fenni Ninan, and raped her despite her resistance, causing injuries. Rahul was booked under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.

In court, Rahul argued that the woman had delayed reporting the incident and had not approached any law enforcement agency. His counsel pointed out that the email she sent to the KPCC chief lacked basic details such as her identity, the date and place of the incident, or whether the complainant was even female. The defence said the woman, who resides outside Kerala, could have easily filed an online complaint but chose not to.

The court, however, noted that the case was registered for rape and not for sexual intercourse by deception. It further observed that the woman voluntarily accompanied Rahul to discuss their “future plans” and, even after the alleged “brutal attack,” asked him to reaffirm his commitment to marriage. The court pointed out inconsistencies: while the complaint stated that Rahul clearly refused to marry her, the police statement said the marriage discussion was postponed to a later time.

The court also noted that the two remained in contact through Telegram and phone calls after the alleged incident. "A perusal of the same prima facie shows that there are contacts between the petitioner and the victim even after the alleged incident, and there is a conversation regarding the nature of the relationship, like a love relationship or a non-committed relationship," the court stated. The survivor’s statement indicated that Rahul continued to express affection and even discussed the possibility of a relationship. This, the court said, raised serious doubts about the allegation.

Significant contradictions were also found between her complaint and her police statement—while the complaint said she required medication for bruises caused by the MLA, her police statement said she did not seek medical treatment to avoid alerting her family.

The court further highlighted that the KPCC complaint mentioned that the Crime Branch already had her details, which appeared suspicious since she had not approached the police at that stage. It noted that her statement was recorded only after the FIR was registered, adding that the chance of the complaint being filed under external pressure “cannot be ruled out.”

Finding no prima facie evidence linking Rahul to the alleged offence, and considering the delay and inconsistencies, the court concluded that this was a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Rahul was allowed bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties. He must appear before the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on Mondays, once every two weeks, for three months or until the final report is filed. He must also cooperate with the investigation, refrain from contacting the complainant or witnesses, and avoid influencing the probe. Advocate Sekhar G Thampi appeared as the counsel for the petitioner. 

Meanwhile, Rahul is also an accused in another case registered by the Nemom police, involving allegations of rape, forced abortion, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 66(E) of the IT Act for alleged misuse of private images. The Kerala High Court has granted him interim protection from arrest in that case, which comes up for hearing on December 15.