Rahul Mamkootathil gets anticipatory bail in second sexual assault case

Expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil was granted anticipatory bail on Wednesday (December 10) in a second case of sexual assault against him. Rahul’s lawyer, advocate Ajithkumar (Sasthamangalam) that the anticipatory bail has been granted by the sessions court in Thiruvananthapuram.

The MLA had already been granted an interim protection from arrest by the Kerala High Court in the first case of sexual assault and forced abortion against him. The Palakkad MLA has been absconding since the registration of the first case against him.

Rahul was expelled from the party on December 4 following a second complaint of sexual assault against him and rejection of his anticipatory bail pleas by a sessions court.

What Kerala HC said

The development comes days after the Kerala High Court on Saturday (December 6) granted Rahul temporary protection from arrest in the rape and forced-abortion case registered against him.

Also Read: CPI(M) faces heat over Sabarimala gold theft case, MLA Mamkootathil row

Justice K Babu directed that the matter would be taken up on December 15 and ordered that Mamkootathil should not be taken into custody until the hearing. “Petitioner shall not be arrested during the pendency. Post on December 15, 2025,” the court noted. Advocate S Rajeev, representing the former MLA, confirmed the interim relief.

What the first case is about

The case before the High Court concerns the first complaint, but Mamkootathil is also named in a second sexual-assault case. A sessions court in Thiruvananthapuram had earlier, on Thursday (December 4), declined to grant him anticipatory bail in the initial rape and forced-abortion case filed last week. On Wednesday (December 3), another woman from Bengaluru lodged a separate rape complaint, leading to the second FIR.

Also Read: Kerala court rejects Rahul Mamkootathil's bail plea in rape case; Congress expels MLA

Mamkootathil, who has been missing since the first case was registered, has argued in his High Court plea that he is innocent and does not need custodial interrogation. He has claimed that his relationship with the first complainant was consensual and that the complaint arose only after the relationship deteriorated. The MLA has also stated that the woman was married but living separately, and that she denied their relationship “to save her own skin.”

In his petition, Mamkootathil added that he is willing to clarify all aspects of the allegations and cooperate fully with investigators, provided he can appear without the threat of arrest. He further alleged that the investigating agency is attempting to “mislead the facts” and asserted that he has documents to substantiate his defence.

(With agency inputs)