During the hearing, Justice Trivedi questioned the complainant’s delay of eight years in filing a police complaint regarding the alleged crime from 2014.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (19th Nov) granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case filed against him.
A Bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma confirmed the interim anticipatory bail previously granted to Siddique.
During the hearing, Justice Trivedi questioned the complainant’s delay of eight years in filing a police complaint regarding the alleged crime from 2014.
“You had the courage to post on Facebook but not go to police station?”
Justice Trivedi asked.
Arguments by Siddique’s Counsel
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Siddique, argued that the complaint was lodged in August 2024 for an alleged incident from 2016. He highlighted Siddique’s senior citizen status and questioned the delay.
When Justice Bela M. Trivedi inquired about the complainant’s age at the time of the incident, Rohatgi stated she was 21, but Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the complainant, countered that she was 19.
Rohatgi emphasized that the complainant had accused several individuals, including directors and photographers, in her social media posts. He noted that Siddique had filed a complaint against her a day before she approached the police. He suggested friction between two industry organizations, AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists), where Siddique was an office bearer, and WCC (Women in Cinema Collective), of which the complainant was a member, as a possible motive for the complaint.
Rohatgi also argued that Siddique met the complainant only once, in 2016, at a movie preview, and said his client could no longer produce the gadgets used in 2016 as he no longer possessed them. He further noted that Siddique had cooperated with the investigation and appeared whenever summoned.
Arguments by the State and Complainant
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State, argued that Siddique had invited the complainant, a lesser-known actress at the time, to the preview, questioning the intent behind the invitation. Justice Trivedi pointed out that the complainant had attended the preview with her parents, indicating prior familiarity with Siddique.
Kumar justified the delay in the FIR, attributing it to the revelations in the Justice Hema Committee Report, which exposed systemic sexual exploitation in the Malayalam film industry. He alleged that Siddique had destroyed evidence, such as deactivating social media accounts, and highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that Siddique had initially approached the complainant through social media, leading to an eventual meeting in 2016, where the alleged rape occurred. She emphasized the courage required to report such incidents publicly, especially against influential figures in the industry.
Previous Hearings
On September 30, the Supreme Court granted Siddique interim protection, subject to trial court conditions and his cooperation with the investigation. The Kerala Police later filed a status report opposing bail, citing concerns about evidence tampering and witness intimidation, given Siddique’s influence.
The complainant, citing the Justice Hema Committee Report as a catalyst for coming forward, alleged systemic industry pressure and personal backlash. The police underscored that granting bail could undermine public trust in justice for crimes against women.
Kerala High Court’s Observations
On September 24, Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court dismissed Siddique’s bail plea, observing prima facie evidence of his involvement. The court rejected the argument that the delay in filing the FIR invalidated the case, noting the psychological and social challenges victims face in reporting sexual crimes.
The High Court further stated that the allegations fell within the broadened legal definition of rape and emphasized that the survivor’s delay in reporting could not discredit her claims without a thorough trial.
The accusations against Siddique arose following the public release of the Justice K Hema Committee Report on August 19, which highlighted systemic sexual abuse, casting couch practices, and gender discrimination in the Malayalam film industry.
This report has triggered multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against various film personalities. The specific case against Siddique is based on an actress’s claim that he raped her at Mascot Hotel, Thiruvananthapuram, in 2016.
The investigation is being conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed to handle sexual abuse cases surfacing after the report’s release.
In response to Siddique’s plea, the Kerala Police alleged that his litigation aims to malign the complainant and undermines the dignity of women. They further stated that there is substantial evidence against Siddique, justifying his arrest and custodial interrogation.
Case Title: Siddique v State of Kerala and Anr
