MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, who is in hiding in a sexual assault case, has reached Thiruvananthapuram. Rahul Mamkootathil arrived in Thiruvananthapuram yesterday. He visited a lawyer’s office in Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram, and signed the vakalatnama.
Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil has surfaced in Thiruvananthapuram after an extended period in hiding, appearing in person to execute legal documentation related to his anticipated bail petition in an ongoing sexual assault case. Mamkootathil arrived in the state capital yesterday and visited a lawyer’s office in Vanchiyoor to sign the vakalatnama, formally authorizing legal representation for his upcoming court proceedings.
Strategic Reappearance and Legal Maneuvering
The MLA’s calculated emergence from concealment reflects a deliberate legal strategy to file an anticipatory bail petition aimed at securing protective detention measures before police apprehend him. Police sources had previously intensified manhunt operations following Mamkootathil’s disappearance, issuing lookout circulars indicating flight risk concerns and potential international border crossing attempts.
The timing of Mamkootathil’s Thiruvananthapuram visit remained strategically positioned to facilitate legal proceedings while minimizing exposure to arrest. However, his precise movements and current location following the visit remain undisclosed, with authorities unable to establish his subsequent whereabouts.
Anticipated Court Proceedings
The Thiruvananthapuram Sessions Court has scheduled hearing of Mamkootathil’s anticipatory bail application for Wednesday, having deferred consideration from initially planned Monday proceedings. The MLA filed his formal anticipatory bail petition yesterday evening, with the court now positioned to evaluate protective measures against arrest prior to investigation completion.
Special investigation teams continue intensified efforts to apprehend Mamkootathil before the court considers his bail plea. The race between law enforcement arrest attempts and judicial protective order issuance creates procedural tension surrounding the case.
Complainant’s Statement Contradicts MLA’s Narrative
Substantive details from the complainant’s formal statement have emerged, providing critical factual framework for anticipated court arguments. The woman’s testimony establishes that her first marriage occurred on August 22, 2024, at a temple without legal registration. She resided with her first husband for only four days before the relationship dissolved within one month.
Critically, the complainant’s statement indicates she met Rahul Mamkootathil approximately five months following her first marriage’s termination. This chronological sequence directly contradicts allegations previously circulated that the woman maintained marital status during her relationship with Mamkootathil. The complainant’s narrative refutes suggestions that she engaged in an extramarital relationship while officially married.
The prosecution intends to emphasize this chronological evidence during Wednesday’s hearing, utilizing the complainant’s statement to challenge Mamkootathil’s bail arguments and demonstrate the complainant’s single status during their relationship commencement.
Mamkootathil’s Bail Arguments and Conspiracy Claims
Mamkootathil’s anticipatory bail petition presents multiple defensive arguments centered on allegations of political motivation and orchestrated conspiracy. The primary contention asserts that all accusations represent false allegations strategically designed to damage his political career, allegedly involving CPM-BJP coordination in case fabrication.
Additionally, Mamkootathil acknowledges that the complainant befriended him through Facebook and that they engaged in consensual sexual relations. However, he categorically denies pregnancy-related allegations, contending that recorded communications represent components of a broader conspiracy targeting him. Mamkootathil further argues that the complainant self-administered medication and claims that any pregnancy responsibility would fall upon her husband if she maintained marital cohabitation status.
These arguments directly conflict with the complainant’s statement establishing her unmarried status during the relationship’s initiation phase.
Personal Staff and Vehicle Positioning
Mamkootathil’s official vehicle remains stationed at a flat in Palakkad, with his personal driver and assistant Fazal also positioned in Palakkad. Despite Fazal’s phone remaining switched off for an extended period, he and the driver both appeared at the MLA’s official office this morning, suggesting potential coordination with Mamkootathil’s legal strategy.
Legal counsel has apparently advised Mamkootathil that departing Palakkad permanently could undermine his anticipatory bail petition, potentially explaining his reappearance in Thiruvananthapuram for legal document execution rather than extended relocation.
Outstanding Investigative Questions
Critical uncertainties persist regarding Mamkootathil’s movement patterns and current location. Police investigation teams remain unable to establish whether he has returned to Palakkad following yesterday’s Thiruvananthapuram visit or maintained positioning elsewhere. The coordination between his staff remaining in Palakkad and his undisclosed location creates investigative complexity as authorities attempt to execute arrest warrants.