Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala police on Sunday took activist Rahul Easwar into custody following a cyber harassment complaint filed by a woman who had previously lodged a sexual assault case against MLA Rahul Mamkootathil.

Easwar was first summoned for questioning before being formally detained. He was later transferred to the AR camp for further proceedings.

Also Read

placeholder

Rahul Mamkootathil suspected to be hiding in Coimbatore; ADGP orders immediate arrest

placeholder

Case against Mamkootathil: Congress distances itself from party mouthpiece’s editorial defending MLA

placeholder

Rahul Mamkootathil submits sealed evidence in sexual harassment case ahead of bail hearing

placeholder

‘Abortion done on her own choice’: Rahul Mamkootathil argues as anticipatory bail plea comes up in TVM court today

The cyber cell had called Easwar after the complainant submitted URLs allegedly implicating him. The complaint also referenced links connected to four other individuals.

Authorities verified the submitted URLs before proceeding with formal action.

Others named in the complaint

A total of four individuals have been booked for allegedly insulting the survivor and revealing identifying details on social media. Those named are:

  • Ranjitha Pulickal, Pathanamthitta Mahila Congress district general secretary (first accused)
  • Advocate Deepa Joseph
  • Sandeep Varier, KPCC general secretary (fourth accused)
  • Rahul Easwar, activist (fifth accused)

They face charges under IT Act Sections 43 and 66, and BNS Sections 72 and 79.

Easwar remains in custody and continues to be questioned.

Meanwhile Sandeep Varier, in a Facebook post, denied revealing the survivor’s identity, saying:

“I am not foolish enough to do such a thing.”

He added that he had deleted a wedding photo before posting about the matter, saying:

“I am not senseless to avoid doing that. Experts can verify the timing.”

Varier also claimed the survivor’s identity was initially revealed by the DYFI, alleging that a block president spoke publicly near the survivor’s home in a way that exposed her. He said the same person had posted multiple Facebook updates in October referring to the survivor and her husband’s political affiliation.

Varier maintained that he avoided naming any block or individuals to protect the survivor’s privacy.

Next steps

Police continue to examine all digital material submitted by the complainant. Further action will be taken once the evidence review is complete.