Court dismisses Rahuls pre-arrest bail plea
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM : Delivering a devastating blow to Rahul Mamkootathil, MLA, the Principal District and Sessions Court on Thursday rejected his anticipatory bail plea noting that the evidence produced by the prosecution prima facie revealed his involvement in the offences. The Palakkad MLA was booked by the local police on November 27 on charges of raping his woman acquaintance and forcing her to terminate her pregnancy. The hearing of the plea behind closed doors that started on Wednesday continued into Thursday. The court pronounced its verdict in the afternoon dashing the hopes of the Congress legislator to redeem some of the lost ground. Following the verdict, the embattled leader was expelled from Congress. Rahuls argument primarily rested on three things: That his relationship with the woman was consensual and the rape charge wont stand, the allegations were politically motivated, and the miscarriage was voluntarily caused by the woman. The petitioner tried to portray his relationship with the woman as consensual and a romantic one and argued that there can be no promise for marriage with a lady, who is already married. Regarding the charge of causing miscarriage, he said the victim herself volunteered to take the pills and he had no role in that. The case was politically motivated and concocted by the CPM and BJP. It was done to deflect attention off some other matters during the election time. However, the prosecution strongly countered the petitioners argument by placing before the court detailed WhatsApp chats, medical records highlighting the plight of the victim after miscarriage and statements of witnesses. The court said prima facie materials showed that the accused insisted on termination of pregnancy. Shredding Rahuls argument that the miscarriage was caused with the womans consent, the court said the consent was elicited under pressure and cannot be considered as consent. Second survivor agrees to give statement The crime branch team had issued a notice urging the woman, who had filed a second complaint against Rahul, to inform the cops about the time and place where she wanted to get her statements recorded. The woman reportedly agreed to file her complaint with the cops and give a go ahead to initiate legal measures. Push for custodial interrogation Rahuls counsel canvassed for a limited custody, but the prosecutor opposed it saying custodial interrogation was required following which the court dismissed the pre-arrest bail plea. It also noted that the offence was of grave nature and granting anticipatory bail will adversely affect the probe. The court in its judgement also said that the victim in her statement had mentioned that she consumed the pill after the petitioner raised suicide threat.
20 C
