The Kerala High Court on Saturday granted interim protection from arrest to expelled Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil MLA in the first case registered against him for allegedly raping a woman and forcing her to terminate her pregnancy.
However, in the second sexual assault case registered against him, the Thiruvananthapuram district sessions court did not grant him interim protection from arrest.
A single bench of Justice K Babu restrained the police from arresting Mamkootathil till the next date of hearing of the anticipatory bail plea he had moved before the court on Friday. The matter has been posted for hearing on December 15.
When the anticipatory bail plea of Rahul Mamkootathil came up for hearing, Justice K. Babu said the matter would be posted for a detailed hearing.
“I will hear arguments on December 15th. During the pendency of the application, I will not permit his arrest because he has raised very serious contentions. No man shall be condemned unless heard. The matter is pending before a constitutional court.
“The party has raised very serious contentions. He has a case that the lady was married and admittedly there was a consensual relationship. I am not in any way prejudiced, I have made sure that he shall not be arrested during the pendency of the application,” Justice Babu stated orally.
Earlier, on Thursday, the Thiruvananthapuram District Sessions Court dismissed his anticipatory bail plea in the first case registered by the Valiyamala police. Soon after the order, the Congress expelled Rahul from the party.
In his anticipatory bail petition in the first case, Mamkootathil contended that the allegations against him in the first information report do not fall under the definition of rape. He added that he is ready to explain the circumstances of the allegations before the police, if he is given an opportunity, without fear of arrest.
In the petition, Mamkootathil has admitted to having a physical relationship with the complainant but has contended that it was entirely consensual. The petitioner also claims that political motives are influencing the case, particularly with elections approaching and that the allegations against him are false, politically motivated and intended to tarnish his public standing.
Rahul Mamkootathil was booked under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 64 for rape, Section 89 for forced miscarriage, Section 316 for criminal breach of trust, Section 351 for criminal intimidation, Section 329 for trespass and Section 116 for causing grievous hurt.He was also booked under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act for violation of privacy.
The Kerala police have so far registered two FIRs against Rahul. The first FIR filed on November 28, accuses him of rape and causing miscarriage based on the survivor’s complaint. The second, registered on December 3, based on the complaint filed by a 23-year-old woman from Bengaluru,also alleges rape. Rahul has been absconding since the first FIR was registered.
Meanwhile, in a setback to Rahul Mamkootathil, the Thiruvananthapuram District sessions Court declined to grant him interim protection from arrest in the second sexual assault case registered against him.
Rahul Mamkootathil has on Saturday filed an anticipatory bail application in the second sexual assault case registered against him by the police based on a complaint filed by a 23-year-old woman from Bengaluru. The bail application was filed in the Thiruvananthapuram District sessions Court.
The court which heard the arguments in the case partially, adjourned it for Monday for a detailed hearing. The court didn’t grant him interim protection from arrest in the case. Though Rahul’s counsel pleaded with the court to grant him interim protection from arrest until the hearing in the case is completed, the court declined to accept the request.
The court directed the prosecution to submit a detailed police report in the case on Monday.
The 23-year-old woman from Bengaluru,in her complaint, alleged that Rahul Mamkootathil promised to marry her and forcefully had physical intimacy with her. “I resisted, clearly stating that I was not ready and needed time. He ignored my objections, repeatedly asserting that such intimacy was “natural,” the complaint alleged.