Rahul Mamkootathil Remanded To 3-Day SIT Custody In Rape Case, Bail Plea Deferred

A court in Kerala granted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) three days’ custody of MLA Rahul Mamkootathil on Tuesday, who was arrested in connection with an alleged rape case.

The Thiruvalla Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) Court ordered that the accused be produced before the court on the evening of January 15. The court’s decision came after the SIT sought seven days of custody, of which only three days were allowed.

The court also said that Rahul Mamkootathil’s bail application will be considered on January 16.

Before the custody plea was taken up, the defence strongly argued that the bail plea should be heard first, contending that the arrest itself was illegal and procedurally flawed.

Here’s Why Expelled Congress MLA Rahul Mamkootathil Was Arrested After A Third Rape Complaint

The defence further claimed that the case was politically motivated.

According to the defence counsel, the complainant’s statement was recorded via video conferencing, but the mandatory requirement of obtaining her signature within three days was allegedly not followed.

The lawyer argued that even the registration of the case violated prescribed legal procedures.

The defence also claimed that the complaint was accepted in violation of rules and that the reasons for arrest were not properly communicated to the accused, amounting to a violation of constitutional rights.

It was pointed out that the arrest notice was unsigned, prompting the court to question the prosecution regarding this lapse.

Another major contention raised was that the mandatory presence of two independent witnesses during arrest was not ensured, as required by law.

Crime Branch Arrests Rahul Mamkootathil In Fresh Rape Case, MLA Claims ‘Was Consensual’

The defence repeatedly described the case as politically driven, alleging an attempt to parade the MLA after his arrest publicly.

The counsel further argued that Rahul Mamkootathil had already been kept in custody for a significant period immediately after arrest, and that the police acted in haste by conducting a sudden arrest.

It was also highlighted that in one related case, an arrest had been stayed, while anticipatory bail had already been granted in another, making the emergence of a third case suspicious.