A Kerala court on Saturday denied granting bail to expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in the third sexual assault case against him. The case was filed against the expelled MLA last week.
This came after the Kerala High Court and a sessions court in Thiruvananthapuram earlier protected Mamkootathil from arrest in the first two cases of sexual assault, which were booked based on complaints of two different women.
The third sexual assault case against the Palakkad MLA was recently booked under sections 376 (rape) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after a native of the Kottayam district launched a complaint on January 8. He was arrested in the case on January 11 in Palakkad.
Mamkootathil was sent to 14-day judicial custody
Meanwhile, the expelled MLA Mamkootathil was sent to 14-day judicial custody by a magistrate on January 11 after being arrested by the police on charges of rape and intimidation.
The Crime Branch had produced Mamkootathil before the magistrate, who had rejected his defence lawyer’s request to consider his bail immediately. The defence had argued that as a legislator, he posed no flight risk and would fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
During proceedings, the court maintained that the MLA must remain in custody, citing the seriousness of the allegations.
Following his arrest, police had to manage protests by DYFI and BJP-Yuva Morcha supporters in both Pathanamthitta and Palakkad. The cops escorted Mamkootathil to the General Hospital in Pathanamthitta for a medical examination amid heightened tension from activists.
What is the case about?
The case stems from a complaint filed by a woman who accused Mamkootathil of sexual assault, rape on the promise of marriage and forcing her to undergo an abortion.
Authorities have registered multiple non-bailable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. These include Section 64 for rape, Section 64(2) for repeated rape of the same woman, Section 64(f) for rape by a person in a position of trust, Section 64(h) for raping a pregnant woman, and Section 64(m) for repeated acts of rape.
The case also cites Section 89 of the BNS for causing miscarriage without consent, Section 316 for criminal breach of trust, and Section 68(e) of the Information Technology Act for transmitting offensive digital content.
