Woman complainant moves SC against pre-arrest bail to Rahul Mamkootathil

The woman complainant in a sexual assault case against Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil has approached the Supreme Court challenging a pre-arrest bail granted to him by the Kerala High Court.

The special leave petition, filed by advocate Subhash Chandran K.R. for the rape survivor, took exception to the “unwarranted adverse remarks” made in the High Court order of February 12 imputing doubts on her character.

The MLA, the former State president of the Indian Youth Congress, is accused under various sections, including under various clauses of Section 64 (punishment for rape) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanchita (BNS) and Section 66 (E) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The latter provision penalises an act by which the offender “intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits images of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating privacy”.

The petitioner, who is anonymous, claimed the MLA was connected to several anti-social groups and elements, and he had a strong, active cyber wing to protect his interests through social media platforms.

The petition said the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail, did not consider arguments raised that the MLA had employed violence, threatened to leak her videos and assaulted her.

“The High Court erred to appreciate that no person has the right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room. Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault. It is settled law that at the stage of considering the bail application, the courts are not required to conduct a roving enquiry into the admissibility of weight of evidence,” the petition submitted.

It noted that the High Court pre-judged the evidence, usurping the function of the Sessions Judge by conducting a mini-trial.

“It is clear that the past relationship or past consensual sexual intercourse is irrelevant. Consent is not a blanket licence provided by a person in a relationship to all and any whim and fancy. Consent can be denied or withdrawn by a woman to any specific sexual act at any point of time,” the petition noted.