1 hour ago
3
The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, S. Nazeera, on Wednesday (December 10, 2025) granted Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil anticipatory bail in the case concerning the alleged rape of a young woman after “inviting her to a homestay at Adoor in Pathanamthitta district to discuss marriage in 2023”. This is the second rape case filed against the MLA.
The court directed Mr. Mamkootathil to present himself before the investigating officer, K. Sajeevan, at the State Police Crime Branch office at Kowdiar in Thiruvananthapuram and cooperate with the probe.
The court also required Mr. Mamkootathil to surrender his passport to the investigating office and not leave the country without the jurisdictional magistrate’s permission.
Moreover, he must authenticate his presence in the country by presenting himself before the investigating office every Monday until further notice. The MLA must post bail for ₹1 lakh and produce two solvent sureties to ensure his compliance with court orders.
The prosecution has sought an authenticated copy of the order, which has not yet been made public, to expressly challenge the sessions court order in the High Court.
The State-side had stridently opposed Mr. Mamkootathil’s plea. It pointed out that another anticipatory bail plea in a comparable case against Mr. Mamkootathil was pending disposal in the High Court.
Moreover, the prosecution argued that the investigation was in its early stages. Releasing the accused on bail risked destroying evidence, intimidating the survivor into withdrawing charges and not cooperating with the investigation, and interfering with the investigation.
Moreover, the prosecution contended that the MLA had dodged arrest since the Crime Branch indicted him on charges of serial rape and coerced medical termination of pregnancy last month. The Crime Branch alleged that the MLA was not cooperating with the investigation and that several notices to him went unheeded.
The Crime Branch also filed another report in court, indicting Mr. Mamkootathil of trespass, illegal detention and causing hurt in the second case.
The prosecution also adduced private communications, including WhatsApp chats and Instagram messages between the accused and the woman complainant, as preliminary evidence to bolster its case against the anticipatory bail plea.
Moreover, the prosecution claimed that the survivor, who was poised to give a sworn statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surkasha Sanhit, felt threatened by the accused and his accomplices.
The FIR accused Mr. Mamkootathil’s party compatriot and Congress candidate for the Adoor municipality elections, Feni Ninan, of having driven the woman to the homestay where the MLA allegedly raped her. Mr. Ninan has since denied the charge and termed it politically motivated.
Defence’s argument
The defence argued that the case was “bogus” and “politically motivated”. The woman had sent the complaint to journalists and politicians, allegedly to scandalise the politician. Moreover, it stated that arrest was an exception and not mandatory in similar cases. The defence promised that Mr. Mamkootathil would cooperate with the investigation.
Investigators said that since the passage of time could eliminate direct evidence such as DNA and injury marks, they would support the woman’s testimony by constructing a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the mobile phone location of the victim and the accused at the time of the crime. Hence, the MLA’s custodial interrogation and identification and seizure of digital devices involved in the crime were crucial to the probe.
English (US) ·