Granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor and CPI(M) legislator M Mukesh in a case of alleged rape, the district sessions court in Kerala’s Ernakulam observed that the complainant had not mentioned forced sexual intercourse in her first statement and had made the allegation about use of force only after the initial hearing of the bail plea. The non-bailable case against Mukesh was one of several cases that emerged in the wake of the release of the Hema Committee report, which highlighted rampant sexual misconduct as being among the problems faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The Opposition has been demanding the resignation of Mukesh, a two-time MLA from Kollam. Apart from Mukesh, the court also granted pre-arrest bail to Edavela Babu, a former general secretary of the influential Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA). The judge, Honey M Varghese, said, “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex.” The court observed that the complainant had sought money from Mukesh to pay the school fee of her child, and that later, she also demanded Rs 1 lakh from Mukesh. “If it had been an incident of rape, there would not have been a demand for money,” the court observed. The complainant had alleged that she was raped by Mukesh in 2010 at his flat in Kochi after he promised her a membership in AMMA. “No element of forcible intercourse was mentioned in the first statement. In the further statement, recorded after the initial hearing of the bail application, she said she was subjected to forcible intercourse. Nothing to mention in the statement regarding coercion and instigation. She accompanied him to get membership (in AMMA). The only contention of the woman was that her consent was obtained on the strength of a promise of membership in the association,” said the court. Referring to the alleged incident in Kochi, the court observed that Mukesh picked her up from the premises of her flat and went to his flat, where they allegedly had sexual intercourse. She was dropped back that night. Even then, the history stated to the doctor on that day lacks the element of coercion, the court observed. “She is a married woman and a law graduate with capacity to understand the nature and consequences of sexual intercourse,” the court observed. The court also noted that in 2002, the woman had posted on social media a new photograph of her with Mukesh and that she had sent New Year’s greetings to the actor. She had also contacted AMMA general secretary Edavela Babu in 2010 regarding membership in the association, the court observed. Quoting her statement, the court noted Babu’s reply in which he purportedly said he had knowledge about her interaction with Mukesh and allegedly asked her to consider him also. “Had the woman been subjected to rape, she would not have been contacted by another person as directed by the petitioner (Mukesh),” the court observed.
