The Kerala High Court questioned why an unmarried man’s consensual relationships should be used to deny bail. The Court examined consent, conduct, and legal standards while reserving orders on MLA Rahul Mamkootathil’s bail plea.
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday raised a key legal question while hearing the bail plea of MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case. The Court asked why his bail plea should be rejected only because of allegations that he had consensual sexual relationships with multiple women.
Justice Kauser Edappagath was hearing Mamkootathil’s challenge to the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court order that had dismissed his anticipatory bail application in a rape case registered by Nemom Police. Earlier, the High Court had stayed his arrest in the case, and during the present hearing, it examined the prosecution’s objections to granting pre-arrest bail.
During arguments, the Court questioned the basis of the prosecution’s stand and made a significant observation on personal relationships and criminal law.
The Court asked:
“Even consensual relationship with a married spouse is permitted under law then what is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationship with so many persons. What is wrong and because of that how can this bail be rejected.”
This remark was made after the Director General of Prosecution argued that the cases against Mamkootathil showed a pattern of intimidation and similar allegations involving multiple women.
According to the prosecution:
“This is not a just a case where a consensual relationship turned sour, and therefore, the past conduct of the accused should be considered while deciding bail.”
The Court again underlined its concern by reiterating:
“What is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationship with many persons?”
while indicating that morality or personal lifestyle choices cannot automatically become grounds to deny liberty before trial.
At present, Mamkootathil is facing three sexual assault cases. He has already been granted bail in two cases and remains protected from arrest in the present one due to earlier interim orders of the High Court.
The present bail plea relates to a written complaint submitted on November 27, 2025, directly to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan by a woman and her family. The complaint accused the MLA of rape, causing pregnancy through sexual assault, and forcing an abortion. The woman also alleged that Mamkootathil recorded intimate videos without her consent and threatened to make them public if she did not comply with his demands.
On the previous day of hearing, the Court noted that the accused and the complainant had been in a consensual relationship before the alleged incident dated March 17, 2025. The Court recorded that the complainant herself admitted she travelled to Palakkad after the alleged incident, stayed with Mamkootathil for two days, and engaged in consensual sex.
Taking note of the complainant’s own statement, the Court asked the prosecution to clarify whether the act in question was consensual or forced.
The judge observed:
“We are on the offence of rape under Section 376. Taking nude videography is a different offence which can be considered separately if attracted.”
making it clear that different allegations must be examined independently and strictly as per law.
The prosecution maintained that it was a case of forced sex and argued that Mamkootathil had threatened the complainant using video recordings. However, the Court expressed that the aspect of video recording could be dealt with separately and should not cloud the core issue of consent in the alleged incident.
Emphasising the need to examine the full factual background, the Court stated:
“You can’t read a particular incident in isolation. The First information Statement (FIS) has to be read right from the beginning of the relationship till it leads to the filing of First Information Report (FIR).”
indicating that selective reading of facts may lead to injustice.
After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the High Court reserved its order on Mamkootathil’s anticipatory bail plea.
In his bail application, Mamkootathil admitted that he had a physical relationship with the complainant but asserted that it was entirely consensual. On the other hand, the complainant alleged that the MLA attempted to mislead the Court by presenting distorted versions of events. She further claimed that the abuse was not a one-time incident but part of a systematic pattern of violence, coercion, sexual assault, physical abuse, and psychological intimidation.
In the first rape case against him, the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court had denied bail in December 2025. Mamkootathil then approached the High Court through the present petition and secured a stay on his arrest. In the second case, the Sessions Court granted him bail. However, after a third complaint was filed, he was arrested on January 11, and his bail plea was initially rejected by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court.
On Wednesday, the Sessions Court granted him bail in the third case as well. With this development, Mamkootathil is now likely to be released from jail.
Following the allegations, the Congress party suspended Mamkootathil’s membership in August last year, after which he resigned as Youth Congress Chief. Despite this, he continues to serve as the MLA from Palakkad constituency.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved In The Case
| Law / Statute | Section | What the Law Means in Simple Indian English | How It Is Relevant in This Case |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 376 | Punishment for rape. It applies only when sexual act is without free consent. | The core allegation against the MLA is rape. The Court focused on whether the act was consensual or forced. |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 354 / related sexual offence provisions (implicit) | Deals with sexual assault and outraging modesty of a woman. | Allegations of sexual misconduct and intimidation are argued by the prosecution as part of a pattern. |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 506 (implicit through threats) | Criminal intimidation by threatening harm or consequences. | The complainant alleged threats using private video recordings. |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 | Section 66E (implicit) | Punishment for violation of privacy by capturing or sharing private images without consent. | The Court clearly stated that nude videography is a separate offence and must be examined independently. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 438 | Provision for anticipatory (pre-arrest) bail. | Mamkootathil approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 437 / 439 | Regular bail provisions by Magistrate and Sessions Court. | Bail decisions in the first, second, and third cases were examined under these provisions. |
Case Details
- Court: Kerala High Court
- Case Title: Rahul BR v State of Kerala
- Nature of Case: Anticipatory Bail Application in a rape case
- Bench: Justice Kauser Edappagath
- Police Station: Nemom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
- Lower Court Order Challenged: Order of Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court dismissing anticipatory bail.
Counsels Appearing
- For the Accused (Rahul Mamkootathil): S Rajeev, V Vinay, MS Aneer, Anilkumar CR, Sarath KP, KS Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, TP Aravind and Maheshwar P.
- For the Complainant: John S Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Giridhan Krishna Kumar, Geethu TA, Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith PS, Devika Manoj, and Ashuthosh Kammath.
Current Status
- Bail already granted in two cases.
- Bail granted by Sessions Court in the third case on the same day.
- High Court has reserved its order on the anticipatory bail plea in the present case.
- With bail granted in all cases, the accused is likely to be released from jail.
Key Takeaways
- Consensual sexual relationships, even multiple ones, are not a crime under Indian law and cannot be used to deny bail to an accused man.
- Bail cannot be rejected on moral judgment or lifestyle choices; only legal ingredients of the offence matter.
- When a complainant admits to continued consensual intimacy after the alleged incident, the issue of consent becomes central and must be judicially examined.
- Separate allegations like private video recording cannot be mixed with rape charges to automatically justify arrest or prolonged custody.
- This case highlights how men can be criminally prejudged based on accusations alone, reinforcing the need for strict scrutiny before curtailing personal liberty.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.