The complainant in a high-profile rape case against former Kerala Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil has moved the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the Kerala High Court’s February 12, 2026, order granting him anticipatory bail. The plea sharply contests the High Court’s observations hinting at a “prima facie consensual” relationship, arguing that such remarks prejudice the trial and amount to a “mini-trial” on evidence inadmissible at the bail stage.
This petition marks the first legal challenge among three rape FIRs against the ex-legislator, lodged at Nemom Police Station on November 28, 2025. The charges invoke Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for aggravated rape—alleging exploitation of trust, promise of marriage, and repeated assaults—alongside Section 89 for causing miscarriage without consent, Sections 115(2) and 351(3) for criminal intimidation, and Section 66E of the IT Act for privacy violations.
The complainant alleges that Mamkoottathil, leveraging his position as a local leader, subjected her to repeated sexual assaults starting from a promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy. She claims he coerced her into terminating it by supplying abortifacient pills through a co-accused, backed by threats to leak intimate videos and emotional blackmail, including suicide threats. Despite the assault, she was allegedly forced to visit his flat for two days post-incident under duress.
The Kerala High Court, while granting bail, delved into WhatsApp chats, voice notes, and the complainant’s post-assault conduct—such as staying at the accused’s residence—to infer an “intense personal relationship” and voluntary consumption of abortion pills. It remarked: “Prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual sexual relationship,” a finding the petitioner deems impermissible, as it questions her character and infers blanket consent from a prior association, contrary to BNS mandates that consent must be free, informed, and specific to each act.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), the plea urges restraint in bail proceedings: courts must limit to prima facie satisfaction of charges, avoiding evidentiary deep dives that pre-judge trial issues. It also invokes XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), warning against observations that trivialize sexual offences or victim-blame, especially when relying on digital communications or relational history to negate coercion.
The petitioner highlights the MLA’s influence as a sitting legislator, pointing to pending Crime Branch FIRs in two other rape cases and ongoing online harassment by his alleged associates, including doxxing attempts. Granting bail, she argues, risks witness tampering and investigation sabotage, given his political clout. She seeks bail cancellation, an interim stay on the High Court order, and expungement of prejudicial remarks to ensure a fair trial.
Filed through Advocate-on-Record Subhash Chandran KR, the petition underscores the survivor’s vulnerability: “The High Court’s analysis not only exceeds the bail scope but erodes the constitutional safeguards against power imbalances in sexual violence cases under Articles 14, 19, and 21.”
Case Title: XXXX v. Rahul BR and Others
Lawcutor 