Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, who was denied bail on Saturday in the case pertaining to rape and criminal intimidation, had induced the survivor to book the hotel room in her name to guard his privacy, according to the order of the Thiruvalla Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - 1. The First Information Statement (FIS) quoted in the report stated that Rahul initially approached the survivor and established a relationship with her by providing solace in her discordant marriage. 

In his bail plea, Rahul had stated that the hotel room where the alleged rape happened was booked in the name of the survivor, and this showed the relationship was consensual. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), based on the preliminary probe, told the court that Rahul wanted the survivor to book the room in her name, although she had specifically told him that a meeting at a restaurant was sufficient. He, however, told her that he was a popular figure and that people would recognise him. The survivor also told the investigation team that Rahul had admonished her for providing his name as 'Rahul BR' on the hotel form.

 According to the survivor, she was under the impression that they could go out when Rahul arrived. However, she was raped when Rahul entered the room, according to the FIS. The statement shows that he also beat her and spat on her face. The survivor got pregnant, which culminated in a miscarriage. According to the survivor, Rahul also threatened her that her husband's family would discover their relationship and told her about the probability of her father having a heart attack and challenged her to take action against him. 

The survivor also stated that she was terrified to lodge the complaint against Rahul due to the cyber attack against the survivor in another sexual assault case registered against Rahul. 

The court noted that the statement of the survivor does not, in any manner, prima facie indicate a consensual relationship and that the allegations against Rahul are serious and grave. The court was convinced that the offence of rape was made out.

The Magistrate also took note of his similar antecedents. "There is every chance of witnesses being threatened or influenced, evidence being tampered with, and investigation being hampered," the court noted in the order.