A plea has been moved within the Supreme Court docket difficult the anticipatory bail granted to Kerala Congress legislator Rahul Mamkootathil in an alleged rape case, stating that the allegation is just not a “political afterthought.”
The petitioner alleged that the accused is within the behavior of growing sexual relationships with girls in misery who’re in troubled marriages or separated from their spouses.
The survivor, who masked her id as ‘X’ in her petition filed late Friday night, questioned the excessive court docket’s February 12 order, which commented adversely on her allegation by terming the sexual act as “consensual” and conducting a “mini trial” on the stage of granting bail, which is more likely to affect the trial towards the political chief, at present a member of the legislative meeting within the state.
The petition, filed via advocate Subhash Chandran KR, mentioned, “The excessive court docket erred to understand that no particular person has proper to sexually assault the sufferer given that she voluntarily got here to his room. Solely as a result of the survivor had identified the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him is not going to make her answerable for the sexual assault.”
The allegation towards Mamkootathil is that he befriended the sufferer, who was separated from her husband, and had sexual activity along with her on a number of events. On one event, after she grew to become pregnant, he pressured her to abort allegedly beneath menace and coercion.
Additionally Learn: Expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil arrested in sexual assault case
“The miscarriage was attributable to the Respondent No. 1 (accused) with out the consent of the petitioner. This establishes a transparent prima facie case towards the Respondent No. 1, and fully dispels any suggestion, resembling that superior by the Respondent No. 1 in his bail utility, that the matter constitutes a political afterthought or a contrived try by the investigating company to mislead the court docket,” the petitioner mentioned in her plea.
She mentioned that her consent is just not a “blanket license” for all and any whims and fancies of the accused, as it may be denied or withdrawn by the lady at any time limit. Within the current case, she alleged that consent for the miscarriage was given because the accused took her nude images and threatened her.
The allegation towards Mamkootathil is for the offence of rape, amongst different provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), together with part 66(E) of the Data Expertise Act, 2000.
The survivor alleged that the excessive court docket failed to understand that the accused is within the behavior of growing sexual relationships with girls in misery who’re in troubled marriages or separated from their spouses. “That is evident from the truth that three FIRs have been registered towards him, all reflecting a constant sample of abuse, torture and coercion, together with pressured abortion. The data supplied by the authorities signifies that, to this point, almost 10 survivors have been recognized, together with one minor, additional demonstrating the grave and ongoing nature of the legal conduct of Respondent No. 1,” the petition states.
The excessive court docket, after going via the submissions, held, “It’s tough to consider that the complainant, being a married and mature lady, would invite the applicant (accused) to her condo and subsequently journey to Palakkad to stick with him except she was keen to have interaction in a bodily relationship.” Additional, it mentioned that the dialog between the sufferer and the accused on WhatsApp “reveal an intense private relationship and don’t point out any aspect of coercion or drive” and shaped a prima facie view that “these circumstances level in direction of the chance of consensual sexual activity” for the acts alleged between April 22, 2025 and the top of Could 2025.
“The above opposed remarks weren’t warranted and ought to not have been a floor for granting pre-arrest bail,” the survivor instructed the highest court docket, including additional, “The above observations are within the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the petitioner.”
It additional sought to query the excessive court docket order for “pre-judging” the evidentiary worth of the allegation, which is the job of the trial court docket, and mentioned, “Whereas passing the judgment granting pre-arrest bail to the Respondent No. 1, the excessive court docket erred in conducting a mini-trial of the problems concerned.”
Final month, the highest court docket had the event to contemplate a petition filed by lawyer Deepa Joseph, who was referred to as for questioning by the police for naming and defaming the survivor on social media. The highest court docket refused to entertain her plea whereas deprecating her for the language used for the survivor regardless of being a girl lawyer.
The survivor’s petition is anticipated to be taken up by the highest court docket subsequent week.
