Back
Grants to MLA in Rape Case, Stresses Consensual Ties Not Rape
Introduction
In a significant ruling on , the granted to Palakkad MLA Rahul B.R. (Mamkootathil) in a rape and forced miscarriage case registered under Crime No. 1750/2025 at , Thiruvananthapuram. Justice Kauser Edappagath, in a detailed order under , held that allegations of a turning sour do not establish rape, while imposing stringent conditions including the surrender of his mobile phone and passport. The case involves the MLA as the petitioner/accused No. 1, the State of Kerala and police as respondents, and the de facto complainant—a 27-year-old journalist—as the additional third respondent. This decision follows the Sessions Court's rejection of bail and comes amid three similar FIRs against the MLA, highlighting a pattern of scrutiny in high-profile sexual assault allegations.
Case Background
The petitioner, Rahul B.R., a 36-year-old bachelor and expelled Congress MLA from Palakkad, is accused of establishing a friendship with the de facto complainant, a married journalist living separately from her husband due to marital discord, via social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Telegram. The prosecution alleges that starting from January 2025, the MLA feigned emotional support and promises of lifelong commitment to engage in multiple sexual acts, including consensual encounters on January 27-28 and . However, it claims that from , the relationship turned coercive: he allegedly recorded nude videos without consent, threatened suicide, raped her while she was pregnant on , and the , and coerced her to consume abortion pills on , via accused No. 2, his friend.
The complaint was lodged directly with Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on , leading to FIR registration under , and ( ). The case was transferred to and later to the . The MLA sought after the , dismissed his application on , while granting it to co-accused No. 2 on . The High Court provided interim protection on , and impleaded the complainant on . The main legal questions revolve around whether the alleged acts constitute non-consensual rape and forced miscarriage warranting arrest, or if they stem from a politicized post-breakup, and the necessity of for evidence recovery like mobile videos and potency tests.
This is the first of three rape cases against the MLA; he received bail in the second on , and the third on , after arrest on . The allegations surfaced amid his suspension from Congress in following multiple misconduct claims, leading to his resignation as Youth Congress chief.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner's counsel, led by , argued innocence and false implication due to political motivations, noting the complainant's husband as a BJP leader and the ruling party's influence. They contended the relationship was entirely consensual between adults, with WhatsApp chats (Annexures 5-7) showing the complainant voluntarily requesting and consuming abortion pills, negating . Emphasis was placed on the delayed complaint—filed six months after incidents—without immediate police action, and prior consensual stays at the MLA's flat. They asserted no rape under BNS Sections 64, as the acts were mutual, and was unnecessary given the MLA's willingness to cooperate.
Opposing, Director General of Prosecution stressed the seriousness of heinous offenses, including of a pregnant woman and privacy violation via nude videos, necessitating custody for recovering the MLA's phone, conducting potency tests, and preventing evidence tampering by a powerful figure. He highlighted collected evidence and the risk of witness influence. The complainant's counsel, , described the acts as aggravated sexual violence with sadistic elements, part of a pattern seen in three FIRs involving coercion, forced abortion, and psychological breakdown. They alleged the MLA targeted distressed women, using threats like suicide to compel compliance, and argued bail would endanger the victim, citing WhatsApp evidence of demands to delete chats and wound photos from assaults.
Legal Analysis
Justice Edappagath applied principles from Supreme Court precedents on under Section 482 BNSS (equivalent to old ), balancing liberty against investigation needs. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Court outlined factors like offense gravity, accused's role, evidence likelihood of flight or tampering, without making seriousness the sole bar ( Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2015) 11 SCC 502). The judgment invoked Vijay Babu v. State of Kerala (2022 (4) KLT 24) for judicious discretion.
Holistically examining the relationship, the Court found evidence of consent: the complainant's admissions of intimate bonds since January 2025, voluntary stays and multiple consensual acts, and WhatsApp chats lacking coercion indicators. It distinguished bailable offenses like hurt ( ) and intimidation/privacy breach (Sections 351(3) BNS, 66E IT Act) from non-bailable rape claims, noting consensual sex on key dates (April 22 and May 2025) unlikely given her actions. Recent Supreme Court warnings against misusing rape laws in failed consensual relationships were cited: Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 11 SCC 398 condemned criminalizing breakups; Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025) 5 SCC 764 held breakups don't justify proceedings; Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2026 KLT OnLine 1217 (SC)) stressed invoking rape only for genuine violence.
On miscarriage ( ), chats suggested voluntary consumption, with consent's vitiation by coercion to be proven at trial. Criminal antecedents from later FIRs were irrelevant, and " " sufficed for phone surrender and tests per Sushila Aggarwal , negating full arrest. The Court clarified law versus morality: extramarital consensual relations aren't illegal, unlike non-consensual acts.
Key Observations
-
"Not every instance of consensual sexual intercourse in a failed relationship can be characterised as rape. Where two adults voluntarily consent to engage in sexual relations and continue such activity over a prolonged period, it can only be construed as an act of mutual choice or promiscuity, not as sexual assault by one partner against the other."
-
"The two incidents of alleged sexual assault that occurred on 22/4/2025 and in the
should not be viewed in isolation... the entire relationship between the applicant and the 3rd respondent, from January 2025 until 27/11/2025... must be considered holistically."
-
"It is difficult to believe that the 3rd respondent, being a married and mature woman, would invite the applicant to her apartment and subsequently travel to Palakkad to stay with him unless she was willing to engage in a physical relationship. The absence of any contemporaneous complaint on these occasions reinforces this inference."
-
"For Section 89 of the BNS to be attracted, the act must have occurred without the woman's consent. Whether such consent was vitiated by force, coercion, or undue influence... is a matter to be established through evidence during trial."
-
"The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the recent trend of invoking rape laws to criminalise the breakdown of consensual relationships... the offence of rape... must be invoked only in cases involving genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent."
Court's Decision
The allowed the bail application, granting with 12 strict conditions: appearing for interrogation on , at 10 a.m., surrendering his mobile phone(s), undergoing " " for three days (10 a.m. to 4 p.m.) for investigation needs like medical/potency tests, execution of a ₹1 lakh bond if arrested, full cooperation, bi-weekly appearances every second Saturday (10-11 a.m.), no similar offenses, no contact with the complainant/witnesses or evidence tampering, no leaving Kerala without trial court permission, passport surrender, and applications for modification at the trial court.
This ruling protects the MLA from immediate arrest across cases while ensuring probe integrity, potentially setting a precedent for scrutinizing consent in prolonged adult relationships before denying bail. It underscores misuse risks in rape laws, urging evidence-based trials, but maintains investigation momentum via conditions. Future cases may see closer examination of relational histories and digital evidence, balancing victim protection with accused rights, especially for public figures.
