The Kerala High Court has questioned whether an accused can be denied anticipatory bail in a rape case merely because he allegedly had consensual sexual relationships with multiple women. Hearing a plea by MLA Rahul Mamkootathil challenging the rejection of his pre-arrest bail, the Court flagged concerns over moral assumptions influencing bail decisions, signalling a sharper scrutiny of how consent and criminality are being conflated in sexual offence prosecutions.
The case stems from a rape complaint submitted directly to the Chief Minister, alleging sexual assault, forced abortion, and threats involving intimate videos. While the prosecution argued that multiple complaints against the MLA revealed a pattern of coercion and intimidation, Mamkootathil contended that the relationship with the complainant was consensual throughout.
He pointed out that even after the alleged incident, the complainant had voluntarily travelled and stayed with him, facts that were reflected in her own statement. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected his anticipatory bail, prompting the present challenge before the High Court.
Justice Kauser Edappagath openly questioned the prosecution’s premise, observing that personal sexual choices cannot, by themselves, justify denial of bail. “Even consensual relationship with a married spouse is permitted under law, what is wrong in an unmarried man having consensual sexual relationship with so many persons?” the Court remarked, adding that bail cannot be refused on moral grounds.
Stressing that allegations of videography or threats must be examined independently, the Court noted that the First Information Statement must be read as a whole to determine whether the core allegation was of consensual sex or forced intercourse under Section 376 IPC. After hearing detailed submissions, the Court reserved its order on the anticipatory bail plea.
Picture Source :
