The Supreme Court today (November 19) granted anticipatory bail to prominent Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma declared the interim anticipatory bail granted on September 30 as absolute.
“We deem it appropriate not to give detailed reasons, particularly in view of the sensitivity of the matter. However, having regard to the fact that the complainant has lodged the complaint almost eight years after the alleged incident which took place in 2016 and the complainant had also put up a Facebook post somewhere in 2018 making allegations against 14 persons including the appellant in respect of the alleged sexual abuse and also the fact that she did not approach the Hema Committee constituted by the Government of Kerala, we are inclined to allow the present appeal,” the bench said in the order.
Also read – No disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after employee retires or after extended period of service: Supreme Court
The relief is granted subject to the condition that Siddiqui should submit his passport to the trial court and cooperate in the investigation. The trial court is free to prescribe other conditions for anticipatory bail.
Siddique filed the special leave petition against the September 24 order of the Kerala High Court which had denied him anticipatory bail.
Siddique’s arguments
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the accused, said, “I am a senior citizen, an actor living in Kerala. The complaint is made in August 2024 about an incident that took place eight years ago in 2016.”
Also read – State cannot claim adverse possession of property of private citizens: Supreme Court
“What was his age at that time?” Justice Bela Trivedi asked. “21 years,” Rohatgi replied. However, advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the complainant, said she was 19 years old at the time. Rohatgi said the victim had complained “against everyone” and cited certain Facebook posts that levelled allegations against 14 persons, including directors, photographers, doctors, etc.
Rohatgi said Siddique had already filed a complaint against him on 26.08.2024 before the complaint was filed on 27.08.2024. Siddique was an office bearer of the Malayalam Movie Actors Association (AMMA) and the complainant was a member of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) and there is some “friction” between these organisations, Rohatgi said.
Also Read – Supreme Court directs union to formulate action plan for food and childcare spaces in public places and buildings
“You had the courage to post a complaint on Facebook but not to approach the police?” Justice Trivedi asked.
Rohatgi said the complaint was filed suddenly due to the conflict between AMMA and WCC. He argued that the complainant was constantly correcting her statements, raising questions about her credibility. The only instance of Siddiqui meeting the woman was in 2016 for a movie preview at Neela theatre. Rohatgi further said that it was impossible for his client to hand over the gadget used in 2016, as it was no longer in his possession.
Also Read – Supreme Court dismisses HPCL plea against Bombay HC order quashing pension cuts for 269 retired employees
Rohatgi said his client has cooperated with the Kerala police and appeared on all occasions when he was summoned. He has not been summoned after 12.10.2024, Rohatgi said.
State’s arguments
Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the state of Kerala, said it was an admitted case that Siddique had invited the victim for a film preview. He asked why the victim, who was a lesser-known actress at the time, was called for the preview?
Justice Trivedi then pointed out that the woman had gone for the preview with her parents and this shows that she had some prior acquaintance with the accused.
Regarding the delay in the FIR, Kumar said it should be seen in the context of the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report in August 2024, which revealed the trend of sexual exploitation and harassment of women in Malayalam cinema.
“But you had the courage to post on Facebook,” Justice Trivedi remarked.
When Justice Trivedi asked if the complainant was still working in cinema, advocate Vrinda Grover replied that she was getting very little work “as a result” of raising her voice.
Rohatgi said, “Did she go to Hema Committee? The honourable judge should ask her.”
“I cannot answer that,” Kumar said. Grover replied that she did not go to Hema Committee.
Advocate Vrinda Grover said it was Siddiqui who had filed the complaint in 2014 by liking her pictures and messaging her. “This is how grooming happens,” Grover said. She further said that in 2016 the accused called her for a preview and took her to Mascot Hotel. “The rape happened there,” she said. About the delay, Grover said it happened after the matter went public.
