Supreme Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case
The Supreme Court today granted interim anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State while granting interim relief. The court stated that the interim relief is for two weeks and is subjected to conditions set by the...
The Supreme Court today granted interim anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notice to the State while granting interim relief. The court stated that the interim relief is for two weeks and is subjected to conditions set by the trial court and his cooperation with the investigation.
"In the meantime, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.1192 of 2024 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, he shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court and subject to his joining the investigation and remaining present before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon to do so, till the next date of hearing," the Court ordered.
At the outset, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi informed the court that the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in this case. He said: "Others got bail but I am refused."
He also sought bail on grounds of delay, adding: "A complaint was lodged in 2024, after 8 years. There are some Facebook posts. Just because I am a well-known actor..."
Against this, Advocate Vrindra Gover, for the complainant, stated: "See his conduct. In 2014, she [complainant] was only 19 years old. He approached her on Facebook and liked her picture. In 2016, she was invited to a preview by a superstar. I have said in detail what happened in the hotel[where the alleged incident took place]."
She added: "This is what happens when voice is raised against Harvey Weinstein-like persons."
But the court orally remarked that the complaint has been filed after 8 years. Justice Bela said: "What prevented you from filing a complaint for 8 years?"
She told the court that the delay in filing the complaint is justified and one has to look at the revelations in the Justice Hema Committee report from a larger context.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
She added that there are cases, where there is no sunlight, and no sanitation. Stating that there are a number of cases registered after the Justice Hema Committee report, she stated: "He acted in 365 Malayalam movies. It is not possible to talk about such perpetrators."
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.
Following the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report regarding the exploitations faced by women in Malayalam cinema, the woman 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.
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)