Stockpile Of Evidence Against Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case, Granting Bail Sends Wrong Signal : Kerala Police To Supreme Court

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.

Delay in lodging FIR

As per the status report, a prima facie case is being made out against the actor based on the evidence seized, medical examination of the victim and statements of the witnesses.

The status report refers to the Hema Committee report and states that the delay in filing the FIR have to be understood in the context of revelations made in the report. The Hema Committee report clearly articulates that perpetrators are powerful and very influential, the police status report notes.

It is said: "In the aftermath of the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report in August 2024, many complaints were raised in the media/social media by various victims of crimes in the Malayalam movie industry, and the police department also received certain complaints/petitions on related issues."

Considering the seriousness of the complaints, the status report notes, a Special Investigation Team was constituted and therefore the investigation began. It is stated the delay in filing the FIR may be considered "sympathetically".

The status report also refutes the claim made by the petitioner that the victim changed her version of the incident time and again in the state of 5 years, first describing the incident as "sexual behaviour" and later explicitly terming it as "rape". It is stated that the Court must acknowledge the fact that it was because of the Justice Hema Committee report that "emboldened" the victim to proceed with legal action against the petitioner.

On this, the status report notes: "One cannot reasonably expect a woman to come out in public on social media and explicitly say that she was raped."

Unwillingness to cooperate with investigation

Following the dismissal of the bail application by the High Court of Kerala, the petitioner in the SLP, a prominent actor as claimed by the petitioner himself and former General Secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists immediately went absconding like a common criminal, evading arrest and escaping the clutches of law, the report notes.

The report notes: "In fact, it is learnt that the accused went underground a day before his bail plea was dismissed, in anticipation of the court order. A Lookout Notice was issued on 25. 09.2024 after the petitioner absconded. He re-surfaced only after a week once the Supreme Court granted the interim protection. All this highlights the unwillingness of the accused to cooperate with the investigating agency, and also bide time to destroy evidence and turn circumstances in his favour."

Accused tampered with evidence

The report further states that a complaint lodged by actor Siddique would showcase that he on several occasions had partially admitted to his role in the alleged incident.

It is stated: " It is also absolutely necessary to verify the complaint lodged by the accused Siddique before the State Police Chief, Kerala, through email on 26.08.2024. By going through the complaint of Siddique, the Hon'ble Court will be overwhelmed to understand that he had at several occasions partially admitted his role in the alleged incident."

The report added that so far, it has been revealed that the petitioner has "ill-intent" and has attempted to destroy his mobile phone in the period he went absconding to avoid examinations of these devices by the police.

The report states: "A Lookout Notice was issued on 25. 09.2024 after the petitioner absconded. He re-surfaced only after a week once the Supreme Court granted the interim protection. All this highlights the unwillingness of the accused to cooperate with the investigating agency, and also bide time to destroy evidence and turn circumstances in his favour."

Need for custodial interrogation, destruction of social media accounts

The report notes that the actor has not cooperated in the interrogation and given evasive, contradictory and tutored answers to the police, citing forgetfulness, knowing fully well that he is under the interim protection of the Supreme Court.

The report notes: "Following the order of this Honble Court dated 30.09.2024, the petitioner sent an email expressing his willingness to appear before the investigation team. The investigation team directed the petitioner through email to produce the details of his Facebook accounts, Skype account other social media accounts and his electronic gadgets used in the relevant period, in order to verify the communication between the victim and the petitioner."

To this, the report states: "He was also asked about the details of vehicles used in the said period. The petitioner appeared on 7/10/2024 with a signed letter stating 'the instruments which I had used earlier were discarded by me'. He further states, 'these instruments have no relevance to your investigation. Hence production of the mobile phones now used by me is unnecessary. Further, their production before the police and their examination will result in unwarranted invasion into my privacy'. He was once again asked to produce the electronic gadgets and social media accounts on 12/10/24. Rebutting with a signed letter he stated 'I am unable to understand the purpose for which various personal details of mine, which have absolutely no relevance to the case under investigation is being sought from me'."

It is stated that the investigation team zeroed in on the fact that Siddique had deactivated his Facebook account through which he lured the victim, shortly after the registration of the case.

The victim has also stated that other women who were similarly approached by the petitioner had shared their experience of the same with her. The gadgets of the petitioner are required for examination by the police as part of evidence collection in the case, the report notes.

It is therefore sought: "The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is vital to the case for unearthing the exact sequence of events that have unfolded min the last 8 years, and also for recovery of the digital devices which the petitioner has used to contact the victim."

Interim protection to accused deprives victim of her right to free and fair trial

The report states: "The petitioner in the SLP is an extremely influential person in society, with wealth, power and clout. He commands a leading position in the Malayalam film industry and has the entire industry under his control. He was a member and former General Secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists, an organization that centralized all power in the movie industry. He has acted in over 350 Malayalam movies.

The petitioner has the ability to obstruct the course of justice and scuttle the investigative machinery. It is prayed that the Honble Court should not give precedence to his personal liberty over the threat of disrupted investigation. If bail is granted to the petitioner, the victim will be deprived of the right to a free and fair investigation owing to the immense might wielded by the petitioner."

Grant of bail sends a wrong signal to society

Further, the report pleads: "The Honble Supreme court order granting interim relief to the petitioner has emboldened the accused leading his fans to celebrate by distributing sweets on the day the bail matter was first heard in the Supreme Court. This celebration , apart from being in poor taste, is a crass and light hearted mockery of the seriousness of the legal proceedings that are underway against the petitioner who has been accused of a very grave offence.

This has severely demoralized and intimidated not only the victim but also other powerless victims in the film industry who were warily waiting to see the outcome of the proceedings of the anticipatory bail hearing as the case is being widely reported upon by the media and attracting much public attention."

The report states that Courts have consistently recognized the potential for an accused to influence witnesses or obstruct justice as valid grounds for denying bail. Several precedents outline the critical factors considered when assessing bail applications, especially in cases involving influential individuals who could interfere with the investigation or intimate witnesses.

In light of all these considerations and the factors taken by the Kerala High Court in dismissing the bail plea of Siddique, the Kerala Police has sought cancellation of interim protection granted to him.