Pathanamthitta: A court in Kerala on Wednesday, January 28, granted bail to expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a third sexual assault case, holding that further custodial detention was not necessary for the investigation despite the seriousness of the allegations.
The Pathanamthitta Sessions Court was hearing an appeal filed by the legislator after a lower court had denied him bail, citing the gravity of the charges and his “similar antecedents”.
The case was registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code following a complaint lodged by a woman from Kottayam district on January 8.
Mamkootathil was arrested in Palakkad three days later.
Two earlier sexual assault cases have also been registered against him by different women, though courts had granted him protection from arrest in those cases.
Public Prosecutor T Harikrishnan opposed the bail plea, arguing that the accused had misused his position to lure the survivor into a hotel room and commit rape.
He contended that, given his influence, Mamkootathil could intimidate or harass the survivor online, making it unsafe to grant bail before the investigation was completed.
Granting bail, Sessions Judge N Harikumar set out the legal principles governing pre-trial detention in a detailed order.
“The purpose of detention pending completion of investigation, even accepting the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor, is to prevent interference by the accused with the investigation, including attempts to delay the course of justice; to prevent witnesses from being influenced or threatened; to check tampering of evidence; and to ensure the safety of the victim,” the judge said.
The court noted that while the seriousness of the allegations is a key consideration, “the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.
It added that detention before trial should not amount to punishment.
“Detention pending investigation is justified only for purposes falling within the scope outlined above, and detention beyond these purposes would assume the character of a punitive measure,” the order said.
Addressing the prosecution’s concerns, the judge noted that the survivor is currently abroad.
“Notably, the survivor is overseas in Canada, and hence the apprehension that she may be intimidated appears to be speculative,” the court observed.
The court also pointed out that key evidence had already been collected.
“The mobile phone used by the petitioner has been recovered and sent for forensic examination, and matters such as room booking and other connected evidence have been obtained even without the petitioner’s intervention,” it said.
As the alleged incident occurred in a hotel room, the court held that the risk of witness interference was limited. The alleged offence is stated to have occurred within the confines of a hotel room, leaving no scope for independent witnesses.
Consequently, the likelihood of the petitioner influencing or intimidating witnesses is minimal, the order noted.
The judge further observed that Mamkootathil had spent 18 days in custody and had complied with bail conditions in an earlier case.
Referring to his public position, the court said, “The petitioner being a prominent political leader and an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly, there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law.”
The court concluded that continued custody was not required.
“Prolonged detention of the petitioner is unnecessary for the purpose of completing the investigation. Any remaining investigation can be completed even with the petitioner on bail,” the judge ruled, adding that there was “no compelling reason warranting continued custodial detention”.
Bail was granted subject to strict conditions.
Mamkootathil was directed to execute a bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, report before the investigating officer every Saturday for three months, cooperate with the investigation, and refrain from intimidating or influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or interfering with the probe in any manner.
He was also barred from contacting or harassing the survivor, either directly or through social media platforms.
The court warned that any violation of the conditions would result in cancellation of bail.
He was later released from Mavelikkara Jail in Alappuzha district.
