'How Can Phone Used In 2016 Be Given Now?', Asks Malayalam Actor Siddique; Supreme Court Extends Interim Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 12) extended by a week the interim anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress. The hearing was adjourned till next week due to the ill health of the petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.When the hearing started, Rohatgi said that the police...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 12) extended by a week the interim anticipatory bail granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress. The hearing was adjourned till next week due to the ill health of the petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi.
When the hearing started, Rohatgi said that the police kept asking about his phone and laptop used in 2016. "I keep telling them I don't have those...How will I give it?" Rohatgi submitted.
When the bench comprising Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma asked whether the petitioner was appearing before the investigating officer, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State, submitted that though he was appearing and has appeared twice since then. But he was not cooperating with the investigation and was giving evasive responses. He has also questioned the relevance of the questions asked to him.
Justice Sharma intervened and clarified that the Police kept asking the petitioner about the phone used in 2016. He then asked how a person can be asked to hand over the phone used in 2016.
"Material and question are two different things. He is saying you want the 2016 iPhone. As per my personal experience, I bought an iphone 16, giving my iPhone 15 back in the shop," Justice Sharma said.
"I quite see that. I am not joining issue on that," Kumar replied in response.
As Kumar took the Court to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, Rohatgi then requested to post the matter next week for a hearing, saying that he had a bad throat.
Previous hearing
On October 22, a bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma extended the interim anticipatory bail granted to him on September 30 for another two weeks. The interim order was extended after Senior Advocate V Giri, for Siddique, sought time to file a rejoinder to the status report filed by the Kerala Police opposing his petition. He added that after the Court's interim order, Siddique appeared before the investigating officer.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State of Kerala, submitted that Siddique was not cooperating with the investigation and was destroying the 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 Justice Hema Committee's report on the abuses faced by women in the Malayalam cinema industry. Kumar submitted that the victim mustered the courage to come out with the allegations following the publication of the Hema Committee report and requested the Court to understand the delay in the filing of the FIR in that context.
"From 2018 onwards in Facebook she has been continuously writing," Kumar added. He submitted that Siddique had 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 women actors and they are feeling demoralised because of the grant of protection to Siddique.
"My apprehension is two-fold. One is, he is not cooperating. When he is coming, he comes with a prepared statement that he won't answer anything more and that he can't recollect. Second is, after the FIR, he has closed his Facebook account. He does not want us to get access to that. We have to approach third parties to access," Kumar submitted.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the complainant, said that she had been repeatedly raising the issue in her Facebook account since 2018 and that "it is difficult to go against a superstar in the industry." She has already paid the price for it. Now there is a report by a judge (Justice Hema Committee report) that compromise and adjustment is a pattern in the industry," Grover submitted.
What has happened so far?
Following the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report regarding the exploitations faced by women in Malayalam cinema, the woman actress made public allegations that Siddique 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 lodged 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 relief to Siqqique for two weeks. It subjected bail order to conditions set by the trial court and his cooperation with the investigation.
It should be noted on October 19, the Kerala police filed a status report opposing 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-intent" of the petitioner's attempt to destroy evidence and threaten witnesses.
It is also stated in the report that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigating agencies in the ongoing investigation and has destroyed evidence and deactivated social media accounts through which he had allegedly lured the victim.
To summarise, the police report notes: "Even though the investigation at the initial stage, there is a stockpile of evidence against him. Considering the influence and clout of the accused some of the evidence will be tampered and witnesses will be threatened. The witnesses who have boldly come forward after the Justice Hema Commission report, will step back if the interim protection to the accused is indefinitely prolonged. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary in this case for the reasons reported. Moreover, if bail is granted a message will be sent that the policy of zero tolerance towards crime against women and children is a mere illusion. Considering 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 grounds for opposing bail."
Dismissal of bail plea before Kerala High Court
On September 24, Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court dismissed his petition seeking anticipatory bail, observing that the materials on record indicated the prima facie involvement of Siddique in the crime. Challenging the High Court's order, he filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The State and the victim have filed caveats.
The Kerala High Court rejected the contention of Siddique that the delay in the registration of FIR was fatal.
"Whether the survivor's above explanation is plausible will have to be ultimately evaluated and decided after a full-fledged trial. Nevertheless, the contention that the above delay vitiates the entire prosecution case is not a ground for scraping the complaint, particularly while considering a bail application. Victims of sexual abuse and assault may experience psychological, emotional and social barriers that feed the delay in reporting the matter, which necessarily has to be understood in the context of the trauma," the High Court observed.
The High Court also held that the acts alleged against Siddique would come within the ambit of the expanded definition of "rape".
Case Details: SIDDIQUE v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR SLP(Crl) No.13463/2024
Appearances: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Siddique), ASG Aishwarya Bhati & Adv Nishe Rajan Shonkar(for State) and Advocate Vrinda Grover (for complainant)