The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the expunction of certain observations made by the Kerala High Court against a woman who had accused Kerala MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil of rape and forced miscarriage, while upholding the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused.
A Bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice NK Singh passed the order while hearing a challenge to the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated February 12, which had granted anticipatory bail to the former Congress legislator.
Challenge Limited to Adverse Observations
Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, appearing for the petitioner and instructed by Advocate Subhash Chandran KR, submitted that the complainant’s grievance centred on the High Court’s remarks suggesting that the relationship between the parties was consensual. He contended that such findings could prejudice the trial. The petitioner, however, did not seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
Taking note of the submission, the Supreme Court clarified that it would not interfere with the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail. At the same time, it held that the observations made about the complainant were unnecessary and directed that they be expunged.
Background of the Case and FIR Details
The case pertains to the first of three rape cases registered against the former legislator. The FIR was registered at Nemom Police Station on November 28, 2025, invoking multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), and 64(2)(m) relating to rape, Section 89 concerning causing miscarriage without consent, and Sections 115(2) and 351(3) relating to criminal intimidation. Section 66E of the Information Technology Act was also invoked.
High Court’s Observations Under Challenge
Before the Supreme Court, the complainant argued that the High Court had exceeded the permissible scope of inquiry in an anticipatory bail application by undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence.
The High Court had noted that the complainant visited the accused’s residence and stayed there for two days after the alleged incident, observing that such conduct “prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual sexual relationship.” It also relied on WhatsApp conversations between the parties and with a co-accused to conclude that the material reflected an intense personal relationship and that the complainant appeared to have voluntarily consumed abortion pills supplied by the co-accused.
The complainant contended that these findings cast aspersions on her character and amounted to a premature evaluation of evidence.
Plea Alleges “Mini-Trial” at Bail Stage
The petition argued that the High Court effectively conducted a “mini-trial” by assessing the admissibility and probative value of evidence at the stage of anticipatory bail, which is impermissible.
Relying on State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025), the petitioner submitted that courts must confine themselves to a prima facie assessment while deciding bail applications and avoid detailed scrutiny of evidence.
The plea further cited XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021), asserting that courts should refrain from adopting reasoning that diminishes the seriousness of sexual offences or questions the character of the survivor.
Allegations by the Complainant
According to the complainant, Mamkoottathil subjected her to repeated sexual assault and later compelled her to terminate a pregnancy by threatening to release intimate videos and by exerting emotional pressure.
The petition stated that the accused insisted on abortion and that the complainant consumed abortifacient pills under coercion and threats, including threats of suicide. It was argued that such acts attract the offence of causing miscarriage without consent under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Additional Concerns Raised in the Petition
The complainant also pointed out that multiple FIRs involving sexual offences are pending against the accused, including cases registered by the Crime Branch. She argued that the High Court did not adequately consider these aspects while granting anticipatory bail.
Further, the petition alleged that individuals allegedly linked to the accused subjected the complainant to sustained online harassment, including attempts to disclose her identity on social media platforms.
The petitioner contended that given the accused’s position as a sitting MLA and a prominent political figure, there exists a likelihood of misuse of influence, which could hamper the investigation.
Case Details
Case Title: XXXX v. Rahul BR and others
Case No.: SLP (Crl) No. 5050/2026
