The Kerala High Court considered a petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging the order of anticipatory bail granted to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil by a Sessions Court in connection with a sexual assault case. The matter came up before Justice Viju Abraham, who dealt with the state’s plea seeking to set aside the pre-arrest bail order. The state contended that the Sessions Court had erred in granting anticipatory bail without properly appreciating the materials collected during the investigation, including the victim’s detailed statements and other evidence indicating prima facie involvement of the accused in the alleged offence.
The case arises from a crime registered by the Crime Branch police under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the complainant is a woman residing outside Kerala who alleged that the MLA had committed rape. The state submitted that the Sessions Court wrongly concluded that there was no prima facie material linking the accused to the offence, despite the contents of the First Information Report and statements recorded during the investigation. It was argued that the Sessions Court failed to give due weight to these materials and prematurely extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
The prosecution further asserted that the reasoning adopted by the Sessions Court was flawed and that the court had overlooked critical aspects of the case while granting bail. The state maintained that the nature and gravity of the allegations, coupled with the stage of investigation, warranted a more cautious approach. It urged the High Court to interfere with the bail order and contended that the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage could adversely affect the investigation.
When the matter was taken up, counsel appearing for Rahul Mamkootathil sought time to file objections to the state’s petition. Taking note of this request, the High Court granted time to the accused to place his objections on record. The court did not enter into the merits of the allegations or the validity of the bail order at this stage and confined itself to passing a procedural order. The matter was posted for further consideration after the winter vacation.
The High Court’s order effectively maintains the existing bail arrangement until the state’s challenge is heard in detail. By granting time to the accused to respond, the court ensured that both parties would have the opportunity to present their respective arguments and materials before any decision is taken on whether the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court should be upheld or set aside.
The proceedings form part of ongoing judicial scrutiny into allegations of sexual assault involving the MLA. The High Court’s present order does not express any opinion on the merits of the case and is limited to facilitating the filing of objections and scheduling further hearing. The outcome of the state’s challenge will be decided after the court considers the prosecution’s contentions and the defence’s response in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.