A court in Thiruvananthapuram on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil in a sexual assault case.
Thiruvananthapuram Principal District and Sessions Court Judge Nazeera S, after hearing the prosecution and the defence counsels for two days, decided to dismiss the anticipatory bail plea.
The court heard the anticipatory bail petition in camera following a request by Public Prosecutor T Geenakumari on Wednesday.
Both sides produced several pieces of evidence, including audio clips and chat details.
The prosecution focused on the allegation against Mankootathil of forcing the woman to abort the pregnancy by consuming pills.
Countering this, Mamkootathil's counsel submitted chats claiming that it was the woman who asked for pills.
The defence counsel alleged that it was a politically motivated complaint, as the woman's husband is a BJP activist and she worked with a firm linked to the party.
Then the prosecution relied on evidence, including voice messages that had not been produced before the court during the hearing.
Considering this, the court directed counsel to present the additional documents.
Following the direction, the prosecution submitted additional material collected as evidence on Thursday.
The prosecution also produced details of a fresh sexual assault case registered against Mamkoottathil based on a complaint forwarded by the Congress party.
However, the court noted that, as the preliminary stage of the investigation is being carried out on the complaint, it is not considered a matter of antecedents.
The court, in its order, stated that in the backdrop of pursuing the election and in view of the fact that the petitioner is a prominent politician, lodging the complaint to ignite a controversy cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, the court said that it is not oblivious of the fact that the complaint is initiated after a considerable delay.
However, in view of the material placed by the prosecution which prima facie show the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged, it appears that the exceptional jurisdiction to grant a pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked in this case, the court observed.
Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, it appears that granting the petitioner an order of pre-arrest bail will adversely affect the investigation, the court said.
"If an order of pre-arrest bail is granted, he is likely to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. Considering all these aspects, this court is not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner," the court ordered.
Mamkoottathil was booked for raping a woman and forcing her to abort the pregnancy.
A case under Sections 64(2)(f) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), 64(2)(h) (rape knowing the woman is pregnant), 64(2)(m) (repeated rape on the same woman), 89 (causing miscarriage without consent), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 351(3) (criminal intimidation) and 3(5) (joint criminal liability) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered against the Palakkad MLA last week.
Police have also invoked Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act for the alleged recording and threat of misuse of private images.
Subsequently, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted and a lookout circular issued to prevent Mamkoottathil from leaving the country.
Police have intensified the search for Mamkoottathil in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, suspecting that he has left the state.