[Malayalam Actress Rape Case] “Why it took 8 yrs to file complaint?”: SC Extends Interim Anticipatory Bail Of Actor Siddique

The Supreme Court Today (Oct 22) asked why it took 8 years for the rape survivor to lodge complaint against Malayalam cine actor Siddique. A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while hearing the anticipatory bail plea filed by Siddique. The Bench was hearing a plea by Siddique against an order passed by the Kerala High Court on September 24 rejecting bail to him.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday raised a critical question regarding the eight-year delay in lodging a complaint against Malayalam actor Siddique by a rape survivor. A Bench comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed their concerns while reviewing Siddique’s anticipatory bail plea.

“Complaint is filed after 8 years?”

-Justice Trivedi inquired during the hearing.

Representing the State of Kerala, Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar explained that the survivor had already shared her ordeal on Facebook long ago. He highlighted that it often takes considerable time for a victim to muster the courage to officially file a complaint with the authorities.

“She has been writing on Facebook. It took time to get the courage,”

-Kumar clarified.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the survivor, reinforced this argument, pointing out the emotional and societal challenges victims face when coming forward.

“It is not a question of silence for 8 years. It takes time, and she has faced consequences,”

-Grover emphasized.

Kumar further accused Siddique of not cooperating with the ongoing investigation and actively tampering with evidence.

“He is destroying evidence and others are feeling demoralized. I will demonstrate how he has destroyed evidence. He gives written statements and says he won’t respond to summons and that he has forgotten (what happened). He has closed his FB and doesn’t want us to get access to that so we will have to ask third parties,”

-Kumar elaborated.

Countering these claims, Senior Advocate V. Giri, who appeared on behalf of Siddique, firmly rejected the accusation that the actor was obstructing the investigation, calling it “totally unjustified.” He requested additional time to submit a rejoinder affidavit.

In light of these arguments, the Court granted Siddique two weeks to file the rejoinder and adjourned the matter for further consideration.

Notably, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi also appeared for Siddique, but the Bench declined to allow two senior advocates to argue on behalf of the actor, insisting on a streamlined approach.

The Bench was deliberating on Siddique’s plea following a Kerala High Court order dated September 24, which had denied him bail.

The allegations against the actor surfaced after the public release of the Justice K. Hema Committee Report on August 19. The report exposed widespread sexual abuse, “casting couch” practices, and deep-rooted gender discrimination within the Malayalam film industry. This revelation has sparked numerous sexual abuse allegations against several high-profile actors, directors, and other film industry figures.

Siddique’s case was formally registered based on a complaint by an actress who alleged that the actor raped her at the Mascot Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram in 2016. Initially reluctant to file an official police complaint, the actress later emailed the State Police Chief, accusing Siddique of raping her after she refused to comply with his demands for sexual favors in exchange for a role in a Tamil movie.

The investigation is being conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) established to handle the surge of sexual abuse cases that emerged following the release of the Justice Hema Committee report.

Following the First Information Report (FIR), Siddique went into hiding and subsequently approached the Kerala High Court for bail.

In his anticipatory bail plea submitted to the High Court, Siddique alleged that the complainant had been harassing him since 2019 through repeated social media posts claiming that he had misbehaved with her at a theatre in 2016. Additionally, she had now leveled a more serious charge of rape at a different location that same year.

The High Court, after examining the material evidence, found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest Siddique’s involvement in the alleged crime. It stressed that custodial interrogation of the actor was necessary to facilitate a thorough investigation and, accordingly, denied his bail request.

In response to this, Siddique filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, through Advocate Ranjeeta Rohatgi.

The Supreme Court, in an interim order on September 30, granted Siddique protection from arrest and sought a response from the State police.

In its submission, the Kerala Police accused Siddique of trying to discredit the complainant in an attempt to violate her dignity. They also asserted that there is a “stockpile of evidence” against Siddique, insisting that his custodial arrest was essential for the ongoing investigation.

CASE TITLE:
Siddique v State of Kerala and anr.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Malayalam actor Siddique

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES