In a ruling issued on Thursday, a Thiruvananthapuram sessions court denied pre-arrest bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, who is accused of multiple offences including rape and coercing a woman into having an abortion.
The case, registered at Nemom police sation, alleges that Rahul befriended the complainant through social media and got into a consensual relationship with her. However, after she became pregnant he allegedly coerced her into an abortion.
#WATCH | Thrissur, Kerala | On MLA Rahul Mamkootathil being expelled from the Congress party, Senior Congress leader K Muraleedharan says, "The court dismissed the petition of Rahul Mamkootathil... At the same time, he was expelled from the party, too. I welcome both decisions.… pic.twitter.com/mXEyjGil18
— ANI (@ANI) December 4, 2025
The prosecutor alleged that Rahul pressured her to terminate the pregnancy and eventually provided her with abortion pills through a second accused person. The victim stated she was forced to consume the pills because of threats and constant insistence. She also alleged that Rahul raped her repeatedly, including even after she got pregnant. He is also accused of taking her nude photos without her consent and used them to further put pressure on her.
However, Rahul's lawyers argued that the case is politically motivated, stemming from a nexus between the CPM and the BJP in Kerala. They pointed out that the complainant is a journalist working for a TV channel owned by the BJP, while her husband is a district leader in the same party, suggesting the charges are designed to ignite a controversy. The defence also argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant voluntarily took the abortion pills.
The defence also presented evidence, including social media posts, to challenge the complainant's timeline of events, indicating she lived with her husband for only four days after their marriage. They also highlighted that the victim took the tablets herself for miscarriage. They also produced evidence to demonstrate the events the complaint was filed to show the victim sent threatening messages.
Though the court acknowledged the defence's arguments about political motivation and inconsistencies, it noted the detailed record of voice chats and messages that show the MLA had insisted on terminating the pregnancy. The court also noted that the complainant's mobile phone was seized and has evidence relevant for examination.
The court prima facie found the evidence suggested that the complainant's consent for the abortion was given under Rahul's pressure. He confirmed that she consumed the abortion pill through video call, according to the court.
The court ruled that the serious nature of the allegations, particularly the coercion to cause a miscarriage, and the potential influence of the accused on witnesses, did not warrant granting pre-arrest bail. The court cited the legal precedents in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar and Another (2012) and Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010), emphasising that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary privilege to be granted only in exceptional cases.
