Rahul Mamkoottathil admits relationship in anticipatory bail plea; denies coercion

Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil has admitted in his anticipatory bail application that he had a sexual relationship with the complainant, asserting that it was entirely consensual. He has also acknowledged that the phone conversations leaked on social media were his, while arguing that they reflect a consensual relationship rather than coercion.

Rahul Mamkoottathil's anticipatory bail plea

The anticipatory bail plea was filed before the Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court in the case registered by the Valiyamala Police on charges including assault, sexual abuse, criminal intimidation and forcing a woman to undergo an abortion. The plea was moved on November 28, a day after the FIR named Rahul and another accused, Joby Joseph.

Also Read: FIR against MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil for stalking and sexual misconduct

According to the FIR, the complainant alleges that Rahul assaulted her and had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions, including at her home in Thrikkanapuram and later at a flat in Palakkad. She also accuses him of taking nude photographs without consent and threatening to use them against her. The complaint further states that abortion pills were provided by the second accused and that she was compelled to take them.

However, legal experts point out that the MLA’s plea implicitly accepts the existence of the relationship and the discussions around a pregnancy, an issue that has figured prominently in recent public debate.

Formal acknowledgment of alleged relationship

“Acknowledging allegations that cannot be fully denied while presenting them in a manner that avoids admitting guilt is a familiar criminal defence tactic. It allows the accused to accept certain facts but argue that these facts do not amount to an offence. This seems to be the strategy Rahul Mamkoottathil is attempting to use in his anticipatory bail application” said a Police officer who has been privy to the developments.

“In this case, investigators have invoked BNS 64(2)(f), a provision that applies when an offence is committed by a person in a position of trust or authority. There is little ambiguity about the MLA’s position of authority, and how that influence may be exercised becomes relevant, particularly in light of earlier incidents where Rahul was accused of threatening officials and political rivals”, he added.

The controversy first gained traction earlier this month after a series of audio clips and chat excerpts of unverified origin circulated on television channels and social media. The materials suggested private exchanges between the MLA and a woman, triggering political sparring and demands for clarification from multiple quarters.

Also Read: Congress under fire, attempts to deflect heat over Mamkoottathil scandal

While Rahul had until now maintained silence on the specifics, the bail petition marks the first formal acknowledgment of a personal relationship with the complainant, aligning with details hinted at in the leaked communications.

'Politically motivated complaint'

Rahul’s petition claims the complaint is politically motivated, pointing out that the complainant works with Janam TV and is married to a local BJP functionary. His lawyers argue that the allegations surfaced amid heightened political tensions in the state, and that selective portions of their interactions were leaked to media outlets before any police complaint was filed.

On the allegation of forced abortion, the bail plea states that the complainant had admitted to taking the pills voluntarily, challenging the FIR’s claim of coercion. It also notes that the complainant is married and living with her husband, suggesting that questions surrounding the pregnancy cannot be conclusively linked to the MLA.

However, according to sources, the complainant has stated in her testimony that she separated from her husband within a month of their marriage and entered into a relationship with Rahul only after that.

Protection from arrest sought

Rahul has sought protection from arrest and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. The Sessions Court is expected to take up the anticipatory bail plea in the coming days, even as the police continue their probe into the serious allegations made in the FIR.

According to police sources, investigators may not wait for the bail plea to be heard and are likely to proceed with the MLA’s arrest. He is currently untraceable.

The controversy first surfaced on social media, when a young actor gave an interview alleging that the MLA had behaved inappropriately with her. Her account triggered a wave of online chatter, with more women, including a transgender woman, coming forward with similar allegations of harassment, sexual misconduct and abuse of position.

As the claims multiplied, screenshots of chats and audio clips of uncertain provenance also began circulating across platforms, further fuelling public suspicion and political noise. There were also unverified claims circulating that the Congress leadership had received multiple complaints against Rahul, including one purportedly filed by a close relative of a former party MP.

Case forwarded to crime branch

Rahul initially responded with a dismissive "who cares" sound bite given to television media, but the matter quickly escalated beyond online sparring.

Senior Congress leaders intervened, and the party asked Rahul to step down from organisational roles and he resigned as state president of the Youth Congress before being formally suspended from the party.

Also Read: Trolls with ‘Shafi’s blessings’ target Satheesan after Mamkoottathil’s suspension

Meanwhile, protests intensified on the ground, with rival organisations staging demonstrations in Palakkad and constituents demanding clarity.

Although police registered a case on the basis of some third party complaints, and later handed it over to the Crime Branch, the investigation struggled to gain momentum as some complainants refused to give formal statements. What began as a social-media storm had by then grown into a full-blown political and legal crisis surrounding a sitting legislator.

It was only after more than three months that one of the complainants formally approached the Chief Minister with a petition, which was subsequently forwarded to the Crime Branch.