News

Rahul Mamkoottathil approaches Kerala HC seeking anticipatory bail in alleged rape case

KOCHI: Rahul Mamkoottathil, MLA, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him for allegedly raping a woman and forcing her to terminate her pregnancy. According to the petition, the complainant, who claimed to be separated from her husband, developed an intimate relationship with the petitioner. They regularly communicated, met on several occasions, and grew closer over time. The complainant allegedly told the petitioner that after taking a long leave from work, her company asked her to submit a written statement acknowledging her relationship with the petitioner and explaining that differences of opinion had led to her absence. Only then, she claimed, would she be allowed to rejoin. The petition further states that certain voice clips circulated on social media harmed the complainants privacy. It argues that the source of the leaked conversations and chats must be identified. This breach of privacy allegedly created mistrust and disputes between the two, despite their close relationship. The complainant reportedly feared that the petitioner might have leaked the chats. The petition also claims that political motives are influencing the case, particularly with elections approaching. It says the complainant was worried about media propaganda and felt compelled to deny the relationship to protect herself. The petitioner claims to have communication records supporting his version but says he needs time to produce them because he was being pursued by the police before he could approach the court, and the investigation continued without waiting for judicial direction. According to the petition, political influence has affected the investigation, and the complaint was submitted belatedly, directly to the Chief Minister, instead of through the proper channel. The petition states that the petitioner has not been given copies of the FIR and FIS despite applying for them. It cites the lower courts reference to the Lalita Kumari judgment, noting that in delayed complaints, the prosecution is required to conduct a preliminary inquiry. It also argues that the allegations in the FIS do not constitute rape and notes that the claim of miscarriage and forced abortion surfaced later. The petitioner alleges this was an attempt by the investigating agency to distort facts and says he has sufficient documents to establish the truth.