The Kerala government has told the High Court that delay in lodging a complaint cannot be used to disbelieve a survivor of sexual assault, while seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a second rape case.

In its petition, the state said the Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram committed an error by granting pre-arrest bail after placing undue reliance on the time taken to report the alleged offence. The case, registered by the Crime Branch, invokes Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and is being investigated by a Special Investigation Team.

The government argued that delays in reporting sexual offences are “natural, expected and common” owing to trauma, fear, social stigma and pressure, and cannot form the basis to doubt the survivor’s version or to grant anticipatory bail. Terming the allegations “extremely serious,” the state said the Sessions Court failed to apply settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
“The Supreme Court has consistently held that victims [survivors] of sexual assault often hesitate to immediately approach the police due to trauma, fear, shock, social stigma, and pressure, and such delays do not, in any manner, diminish the credibility of the victim [survivor] at the bail stage,” the plea said.

The state also contended that the Sessions Court did not adequately consider allegations of forcible sexual intercourse that allegedly led to a severe panic attack, breathing difficulties, intense physical pain and multiple injuries to the survivor.

In his bail plea before the Sessions Court, Mamkootathil pointed to the nearly two-year delay in reporting the alleged offence and argued that the survivor had not approached law enforcement authorities during that period. He also questioned the survivor’s intent, noting that the complaint was initially submitted to KPCC president Sunny Joseph, who later forwarded it to the State Police Chief.

While granting anticipatory bail, the Sessions Court on December 10, 2025, referred to the “considerable delay” in setting the criminal law in motion. At the same time, it noted the survivor’s explanation that she feared invasion of privacy and damage to her future if she came forward. The court also cited her statement that she delayed filing the complaint because she believed the accused would marry her.

The court observed that delays in sexual offence cases may arise from reluctance to report incidents that affect personal dignity and family honour. However, it added that in this case, the explanations offered for the delay varied and extended to nearly two years, leading the court to take a “sceptical view” of the allegations.

The Sessions Court, however, rejected the accused’s argument that the complaint to the KPCC chief cast doubt on the survivor’s credibility. It held that the complaint was intended to prevent the accused from holding positions involving public engagement, particularly with women and children. The court also noted that the complaint referred to earlier allegations of sexual abuse and forced abortion involving another woman.

The Crime Branch case is based on a complaint by a 23-year-old woman, who alleged that Mamkootathil raped her in 2023 after promising marriage while she was studying outside Kerala. According to the complaint, the accused first contacted her through Instagram and later on Telegram, insisted on meeting during a vacation, took her to a secluded homestay along with his friend Fenni Ninan, and sexually assaulted her despite her resistance, causing injuries.

Meanwhile, the High Court on Wednesday allowed the survivor’s plea to be impleaded in the state government’s petition challenging the bail. The matter is scheduled to be heard on January 21.