close
close

Supreme Court extends interim bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in rape case

Supreme Court extends interim bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in rape case

The Supreme Court today (October 22) extended interim interim bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations made by a young actress two weeks ago.

A bench including Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma adjourned the hearing after Senior Advocate V Giri, for Siddique, sought time to file a reply to the status report filed by the Kerala Police opposing his petition. He added that after the interim order of the Court, Siddique appeared before the investigating officer.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State of Kerala, claimed that Siddique was not cooperating with the investigation and was destroying evidence.

When Justice Trivedi pointed out that the complaint was filed by the victim eight years after the alleged incident, Ranjit Kumar explained the developments related to the report of the Justice Hema Committee on Abuse of Women in the Malayalam Film Industry . Kumar contended that the victim mustered the courage to come forward with her allegations after the release of the Hema committee report and requested the Court to understand the delay in filing the FIR in this context.

“Since 2018, she has been writing continuously on Facebook” Kumar added. He maintained that Siddique destroyed the electronic gadgets and deactivated his social media account to hinder the investigation.

Kumar added that there are thirty FIRs filed by many other actresses and they are feeling demoralized because of granting protection to Siddique.

“My apprehension is twofold. The first is that he is not cooperating. When he arrives, he comes with a prepared statement that he will not respond to anything anymore and which he does not remember. Second, after the FIR, he closed his Facebook account. He doesn’t want us to have access to it. We have to go to third parties to access it. Kumar submitted.

Lawyer Vrinda Groveron behalf of the victim, said she had raised the subject several times on her Facebook account since 2018 and that “it’s hard to go against a superstar in the industry.” “She has already paid the price. There is now a judge’s report (Hema Justice Committee report) that compromise and adjustment is a trend in the industry,” Grover said.

Background

Following the release of the Justice Hema Committee report on exploitation of women in Malayalam cinema, the actress publicly stated that Siddique had sexually exploited her in 2016 when she met him in a hotel room after he offered her opportunities in the film industry. Following her public allegations, she filed an FIR under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code in 2024.

On September 30, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma granted interim measures to Siqqique for two weeks. The bail order was subject to the conditions set by the trial court and its cooperation with the investigation.

It may be noted that on October 19, the Kerala Police filed a status report opposing the bail granted to Siddique on various grounds, including that he is an extremely influential person in the Malayalam film industry, and the ongoing investigation reveals the “ill intention” of the petitioner’s attempt to destroy evidence and threaten witnesses.

It is also stated in the report that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating agencies in the ongoing investigation and destroyed evidence and deactivated social media accounts through which he allegedly attracted the victim.

In summary, the police report notes: Although the investigation is in its early stages, there is ample evidence against him. Considering the influence and weight of the accusedd some evidence will be falsified and witnesses will be threatened. The witnesses who boldly came forward after the Justice Hema Commission report will withdraw if the interim protection of the accused is extended indefinitely. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in this case for the reasons given. Moreover, if bail is granted, the message will be sent that the zero tolerance policy towards crimes against women and children is just an illusion. Given these factors, the petitioner’s influence, the risk to the integrity of the investigation, and the broader public interest in cases involving crimes against women are strong reasons to oppose release under deposit. »

On September 24, Justice CS Dias of the Kerala High Court rejected his anticipatory bail application, observing that the documents placed on record indicated Siddique’s prima facie involvement in the crime.

Challenging the High Court order, he filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The State and the victim filed reservations.

The Kerala High Court rejected Siddique’s contention that the delay in registering the FIR was fatal.

The plausibility of the survivor’s above explanation will ultimately have to be assessed and decided after a full-fledged trial. However, the contention that the aforesaid delay vitiates the entire prosecution case is not a ground for dismissing the complaint, especially while considering a bail application. Victims of sexual abuse and assault may face psychological, emotional and social barriers that fuel delay in reporting, which must necessarily be understood in the context of the trauma,“, the High Court observed.

The High Court also ruled that the acts alleged against Siddique would fall within the scope of the expanded definition of “rape”.

Details of the case: SIDDIQUE v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024

Appearances: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Siddique), ASG Aishwarya Bhati and Advocate Nishe Rajan Shonkar (for the State) and Advocate Vrinda Grover (for the complainant)