The Supreme Court on 25 March 2026 ordered the removal of remarks made by the Kerala High Court that suggested a consensual relationship between a complainant and MLA Rahul Mamkoottathil in a rape‑related anticipatory bail case. The decision underscores procedural safeguards in bail applications and highlights the legal treatment of sexual offences under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita . Key Developments Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N.K. Singh expunged the High Court’s observations that the relationship was "prima facie consensual". The court clarified that while it will not disturb the High Court’s grant of anticipatory bail , the High Court overstepped by analysing evidence at the bail stage. The petition, filed by senior advocate P.V. Dinesh on behalf of the complainant, argued that the High Court conducted a "mini‑trial" by scrutinising WhatsApp chats, voice clips and the complainant’s post‑incident behaviour. The Supreme Court cited its own precedents in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan (2025) and XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) to stress that bail courts must limit themselves to a prima facie assessment. Multiple FIRs, including three rape cases, are pending against the ex‑Congress legislator, raising concerns about abuse of power. Important Facts The case (SLP(Crl) No. 5050/2026) stems from a complaint lodged on 28 November 2025 at Nemom Police Station. The FIR cites offences under sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m) (rape), 89 (causing miscarriage without consent), 115(2) and 351(3) (criminal intimidation), and 66E of the IT Act . The complainant alleges repeated sexual assault, coercion to abort a pregnancy through threats of video leakage, and sustained online harassment linked to the accused’s political influence. The High Court had noted that the complainant stayed at the accused’s flat for two days after the alleged assault and that WhatsApp conversations indicated an "intense personal relationship". The Supreme Court held that such observations could prejudice the trial and are not permissible in a bail application. UPSC Relevance 1. Judicial Review and Procedure : The judgment illustrates the limits of judicial discretion in bail matters, a key topic under GS 2 (Polity) concerning the functioning of courts and protection of individual rights. 2. Criminal Law Reform : The case applies provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , highlighting the evolving legal framework for sexual offences and consent. 3. Women’s Safety and Political Power : The allegations against a sitting MLA raise questions about misuse of authority, a recurring theme in GS 4 (Ethics) and GS 2 (Polity). 4. Digital Evidence : The reliance on WhatsApp chats underscores the growing importance of cyber forensics, relevant for both GS 2 and GS 3 (Technology & Governance). Way Forward • Courts should adhere strictly to the principle of prima facie assessment in bail applications, avoiding detailed evidentiary analysis that may prejudice the trial. • Law‑makers must ensure that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is sensitively implemented, especially regarding consent and coercion. • Strengthening mechanisms for protecting survivors of sexual offences, particularly when the accused holds public office, is essential to uphold the rule of law and gender justice. • Enhanced training for law enforcement on handling digital evidence and safeguarding victims from online harassment will improve investigative outcomes.