The Kerala government has approached the High Court challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court order that granted anticipatory bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case registered by the Crime Branch. On Wednesday, Sessions Court Judge Nazeera S granted bail, holding that there was no prima facie material to support the survivor’s allegation that the MLA had raped her.

In its petition, the state has questioned these findings and argued that the MLA is a “serial offender,” pointing out that he is also an accused in another case registered by the Nemom police involving allegations of rape, forced abortion, criminal intimidation, and misuse of private images. In that case, the High Court has already granted him interim protection from arrest, with the matter posted for further hearing on December 15.

The Crime Branch case is based on the complaint of a 23-year-old woman who alleged that Rahul raped her after promising to marry her. She claimed the incident took place in 2023 while she was studying outside Kerala. According to the complaint, Rahul first contacted her through Instagram and later on Telegram. During a vacation, he allegedly insisted on meeting her, took her to a secluded homestay with his friend Fenni Ninan, and raped her despite her resistance, causing injuries. Rahul has been booked under Section 376 (rape) of the IPC.

The government’s petition disputes the Sessions Court’s acceptance of the defence claim that the case was "politically motivated." The lower court had noted that the survivor initially sent her complaint to the KPCC chief, which was later forwarded to the police, and observed that the Crime Branch having her details before she formally approached the police appeared “suspicious.” It also remarked that her statement was recorded only after the FIR was registered, suggesting that the possibility of external pressure “cannot be ruled out.”

While granting bail, the Sessions Court further noted contradictions between her complaint and her police statement—particularly regarding the injuries she allegedly sustained. The complaint claimed she needed medication for bruises, whereas her police statement said she did not seek treatment to avoid alarming her family. The court also pointed to the continued communication between the two on Telegram and over phone calls after the alleged incident, including conversations about the nature of their relationship. It was observed that she voluntarily met Rahul to discuss “future plans” and, even after the alleged assault, asked him to reaffirm his commitment to marriage. These inconsistencies, the court said, created serious doubt about the allegation.

Citing these findings, the Sessions Court concluded that the materials on record did not reveal prima facie evidence linking the MLA to the offence and that the delay and contradictions justified the grant of anticipatory bail.

Meanwhile, Rahul, who was on the run for at least 15 days after the Nemom police registered a case, made a public appearance to cast his vote in the local body elections. He arrived around 4.30 pm at Booth No. 2 in Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad, amid widespread speculation about whether he would show up.