The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday removed certain observations made by the Kerala High Court against a woman who had accused Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkootathil of rape, while upholding the anticipatory bail granted to him in the case involving alleged rape and forced miscarriage.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and NK Singh declined to interfere with the High Court’s February 12 order granting anticipatory bail to the MLA.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Subhash Chandran KR argued that the victim’s primary concern was with the High Court’s remarks suggesting that the relationship was consensual, which could prejudice the trial.

Taking note of this, the Supreme Court said that while it would not disturb the High Court’s final decision on bail, the observations concerning the complainant were unnecessary and should be removed. Accordingly, those remarks were expunged.

This case is one of three rape cases registered against the former Congress legislator. The FIR was lodged at Nemom Police Station on November 28, 2025, invoking provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita related to rape, causing miscarriage without consent, and criminal intimidation, along with Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.

The complainant contended that the High Court exceeded the permissible scope of review in considering anticipatory bail by conducting a detailed evaluation of the evidence and making findings that could affect the trial.

The plea specifically challenged observations that implied the relationship was consensual. The High Court had noted that the complainant stayed at the accused’s flat for two days after the alleged assault, stating that such conduct “prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual sexual relationship.”

It had also relied on WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties and a co-accused to infer an intense personal relationship and suggested that the complainant may have voluntarily taken abortion pills provided by the co-accused.

The complainant argued that these remarks cast aspersions on her character and went beyond the limited scope of inquiry in bail proceedings.

The petition further alleged that the High Court effectively conducted a “mini-trial” by assessing the admissibility and weight of evidence, which is not permissible at the stage of deciding anticipatory bail.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), the plea argued that courts should avoid detailed scrutiny of evidence at the bail stage and restrict themselves to a prima facie evaluation.

It also referred to the judgment in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), which cautioned courts against reasoning that undermines the seriousness of sexual offences or questions the survivor’s character while granting bail.

According to the petitioner, factors such as the complainant visiting the accused after the alleged incident or maintaining a personal relationship cannot be used to infer consent.

The plea stressed that under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, consent must be explicit and voluntary, and a prior relationship does not amount to blanket consent.

The complainant alleged that Mamkootathil repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault and later coerced her into terminating a pregnancy by threatening to release intimate videos and exerting emotional pressure.

It was claimed that the accused insisted on abortion and that the complainant consumed abortifacient pills under coercion and threats of suicide.

The petition argued that such actions amount to the offence of causing miscarriage without consent under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

It also highlighted that multiple FIRs, including those registered by the Crime Branch, are pending against the MLA, and alleged that the High Court failed to consider these aspects while granting anticipatory bail.

Further, the complainant alleged that she has faced sustained online harassment by individuals allegedly linked to the accused, including attempts to reveal her identity on social media. The plea added that, given his position as a sitting MLA, the accused could misuse his influence, and granting him anticipatory bail could hinder the investigation.

(With Live Law inputs)