Kerala Sexual Assault Case: Survivor Moves Supreme Court Against Bail To MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil

In a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought to set aside the High Court’s order dated February 12, 2026, passed in Bail Application No. 14427 of 2025. The impugned order granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, who is a sitting legislator of the Indian National Congress and was serving as the State President of the Indian Youth Congress at the time of the alleged offences.

The case arises from Crime No. 1750 of 2025 registered at Nemom Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act, 2000, including charges related to rape, criminal intimidation and privacy violations.

The petitioner, who is the de facto complainant, has argued before the apex court that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while granting anticipatory bail by conducting what she described as a “mini-trial” and making adverse observations about her character and conduct.

According to the plea, the High Court observed that the complainant had visited the accused’s residence and stayed there after the alleged assault, which “prima facie suggests the existence of a consensual sexual relationship”. The High Court further noted that it appeared “improbable” that a married and mature woman would visit and stay with the accused unless she was willing to engage in a physical relationship.

The petitioner contends that such observations undermine settled legal principles governing bail proceedings and risk prejudicing the trial.

The plea states that courts are not expected to undertake a detailed examination of evidence or render findings touching on the merits of the case at the bail stage. It relies on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Karnataka v. Darshan, where the court held that detailed evaluation of evidence during bail hearings amounts to premature adjudication.

The petitioner has further argued that the High Court’s remarks effectively cast doubt on the survivor’s character and conduct, which is impermissible in cases involving sexual offences.

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the petition notes that judicial reasoning which diminishes or trivialises the survivor’s allegations must be avoided. The judgment had cautioned courts against making observations about the sexual history or behaviour of the prosecutrix while considering bail.

The woman has alleged that the accused repeatedly sexually assaulted her, including during her pregnancy, and coerced her into terminating the pregnancy by supplying abortion pills. She claims the termination occurred under sustained pressure, threats and intimidation.

According to the petition, the accused allegedly threatened to leak nude photographs of the complainant and exerted pressure through intimidation, which ultimately forced her to comply with the abortion. The plea argues that such circumstances fall squarely within the offence of causing miscarriage without the woman’s consent under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petitioner has also highlighted that several other criminal cases involving sexual offences have been registered against the accused, which allegedly reveal a pattern of similar conduct. She further alleged that she was subjected to extensive online harassment and cyber attacks after the allegations became public.

The plea states that individuals associated with the accused publicly revealed her identity and posted defamatory content on social media platforms, prompting the registration of a separate case by the Thiruvananthapuram City Cyber Police.

Arguing that the High Court failed to consider relevant material and instead relied on factors unrelated to the grant of bail, the petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to set aside the anticipatory bail order.

The petition states that the High Court’s findings at the preliminary stage could influence the course of the trial and undermine the fairness of the proceedings, warranting intervention by the apex court.