Kerala High Court Calls For State's Response On Malayali Actor Siddique's Plea Seeking Anticipatory Bail Over Rape Charges

Actor Siddique in his anticipatory bail application alleged that the complaint was filed to retaliate against him for expressing his view in the press meeting on August 23, after the publication of the Justice Hema Comittee Report.

After the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report, he and other officer bearers of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) conducted a press conference. They welcomed the report and stated that the law should take its course. He said that the complainant is a supporter of Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) and came forward with the complaint soon after the petitioner took a stand that cases can be registered only based on individual complaints.

Background

The complainant had sent her complaint to the Museum Police Station through email. An FIR was registered on 27.08.2024 alleging an offence punishable under Section 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation). She mentioned in her complaint that the actor invited her to the Muscot Hotel after a movie preview in Nila Theatre in the pretext of discussing a new film. She who was acquainted with the actor, without suspecting anything, went with him to his room and there, he committed rape on her. She also mentioned that after she mentioned the harassment in 2019 through a Facebook post, she received many threatening messages.

In 2019, the complainant had mentioned in a Facebook post that the actor 'tried to sexually misbehave with her' and 'made verbal sexual offerings' in 2016 while she was at Nila Theatre, Trivandrum for a movie preview. The petitioner alleges that the complainant had changed the allegations to 'rape' to create a media impact and ensure the arrest of the actor by booking him under non-bailable offences.

Actor Siddique claimed in his bail petition that certain woman artists formed the WCC and unleashed propaganda against AMMA. He stated that in the initial years, after the formation of WCC, there was an attempt to malign AMMA. At that time, the actor claims that he was targeted as he spoke in support of the organisation. He added that the detractors used the complainant to brand him as a 'traitor' and 'verbal abuser'.

The actor implicitly referring to the Actress Assault Case had mentioned that WCC with its initial propaganda tried to show that AMMA was supporting the actor accused in the crime. He says that AMMA was only taking an 'informed and principled stand that no action can be taken against a member only because he is indicted in the police' and they shall wait for the judgment of a court in this matter. He mentions that the survivor in the case and the former wife of accused actor was in the forefront of forming WCC. The petitioner further alleges that the complainant is a member of WCC and she was used by the detractors to brand him as a.

He also mentions that WCC hijacked the subject of gender discrimination as a ploy to damage the reputation of AMMA and certain individual office bearers. He alleges that WCC is targeting him as he chose to speak in support of AMMA.

He further states that after the publication of Justice Hema Committee Report, the attack against AMMA was renewed. He adds that AMMA could not have moved against anyone as no name was revealed in the report, but propaganda was started that AMMA wanted to screen the exploiters. He said that WCC took the stand that Justice Hema Committee Report was sufficient to register a case.

The actor has also raised issues with the media saying that they are pushing for the actor's arrest. He said the media was a complicit partner to the campaign against the petitioner and projected the complainant as an innocent victim.

The plea was moved by Advocates Philip T. Varghese, Adv. Sujesh Menon V. B, Thomas T Varghese, Achu Subha Abraham, V T Litha, K R Monisha, Nitya R. Senior Counsel Adv B. Raman Pillai is engaged for appearance.

Case Title: Siddique v State of Kerala

Case No: BA 7331/ 2024