A Sessions Court in Kerala on Wednesday granted bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in connection with a third rape case registered against him. While the prosecution alleged a grave misuse of political influence, the court highlighted major procedural lapses in the police arrest and raised several questions regarding the survivor’s conduct following the alleged incident.

The court pointed to several factors that required "detailed appreciation of evidence" during a trial:

• Marital status: The survivor is currently in a subsisting marriage. The court questioned how she could have legally entered a marriage with the petitioner, as she claimed he had promised.

• Continued interaction: The court noted the survivor maintained cordial contact with the MLA even after the alleged assault. This included WhatsApp exchanges in late 2024 and 2025 that appeared friendly in nature.

• Financial transactions: Evidence suggested the survivor transferred money to the petitioner on multiple occasions and discussed a joint purchase of a flat in Palakkad, even after she became aware of her pregnancy.

• Timing of complaint: The court observed that the survivor only approached the police after learning that other women had raised similar allegations of sexual abuse against the politician.

 Procedural lapses 

The court found that the petitioner’s arrest did not strictly comply with mandatory legal requirements. Under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., the "grounds of arrest"—comprising basic factual allegations—must be communicated to the accused. In this case, the police provided only general "reasons" for arrest, such as the possibility of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence.

Furthermore, the court raised concerns regarding the delay of one year and nine months in filing the First Information Report (FIR). While the survivor’s statement was recorded via a Zoom meeting while she was in Canada, there was no evidence that she signed the statement within the statutorily prescribed three days required for electronic communications.

Bail conditions

The court determined that prolonged detention was unnecessary as the investigation was substantially complete, the petitioner’s mobile phone had been recovered, and the survivor’s presence in Canada made claims of immediate intimidation "speculative". It also noted that the MLA had complied with all conditions in two other similar cases pending against him.

The petitioner was granted bail under the following conditions:

• Execution of a ₹50,000 bail bond with two solvent sureties.

• Reporting to the investigating officer every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for three months.

• Strict orders not to intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence, or contact the survivor directly or via social media