'She Had Courage For FB Post But Can't Approach Police For 8 Yrs?': Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Malayalam Actor Siddique In Rape Case
Gursimran Kaur Bakshi
19 Nov 2024 11:26 AM IST
The Supreme Court today (November 19) granted anticipatory bail to prominent Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case registered against him based on allegations levelled by a young actress.
A bench comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made the interim anticipatory bail, granted on September 30, absolute.
"We deem it appropriate not to assign elaborate reasons, particularly considering the sensitivity of the case. However, considering the fact that the complainant had filed the complaint almost eight years after the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 and the complainant had also posted the posts on Facebook somewhere in 2018 making allegations about 14 people including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse and also the fact that she had not gone to the Hema Committee, which was set up by the Government of Kerala, we are inclined to accept the present appeal," the bench observed in the order.
The relief is granted subject to the condition that Siddique should deposit the passport before the trial court and shall cooperate with the investigation. The trial court is at liberty to set other conditions for the anticipatory bail.
Siddique filed the Special Leave Petition against the Kerala High Court's order dated September 24 denying him anticipatory bail.
Arguments of Siddique
"I am a senior citizen, an actor based in Kerala. The complaint is made in August 2024 about an incident which happened eight years ago in 2016," Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the accused, stated.
"What was her age then?" Justice Bela Trivedi asked. "21 years," Rohatgi replied. However, Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the complainant, said that she was 19 years old then. Rohatgi said that the victim had made complaints against "all and sundry" and referred to certain Facebook posts which raised allegations against 14 persons, including directors, photographers, doctors etc.
Rohatgi said that Siddique had filed a complaint against her on 26.08.2024 even before she filed the complaint on 27.08.2024. Sidduque was an office bearer of the Association of Malayalam Movie Actors (AMMA) and the complainant was a member of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) and there is some "friction" between these organisations, Rohatgi added.
"You had the courage to post the complaint on Facebook but not to go to the police?" Justice Trivedi asked.
Because of the friction between AMMA and WCC, the complaint was suddenly filed, replied Rohatgi. He argued that the complainant was consistently improving her versions, raising questions about her credibility. The only instance where Siddique met the woman was in 2016 at the Nila theatre for the preview of a film. Rohatgi further said that it was impossible for his client to hand over the gadgets which he used in 2016, as he was no longer in their possession.
Rohatgi added that his client has cooperated with the Kerala police by appearing on all occasions he was summoned. He was not summoned after 12.10.2024, Rohatgi added.
State's arguments
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, for the State of Kerala, said that it is an admitted case that Siddique invited the victim for the preview of a film. Why was the victim, who was a less-known actress then, invited for the preview, he asked.
Justice Trivedi then pointed out that the woman went for the preview with her parents and this suggested that there was some prior acquaintance with the accused.
Regarding the delay in the FIR, Kumar said that it has to be seen in the context of the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report in August 2024, which revealed the trend of sexual exploitation and harassment of women in Malayalam cinema.
"But you had the courage to post on Facebook," Justice Trivedi commented.
When Justice Trivedi asked if the complainant was still working in cinema, Advocate Vrinda Grover replied that she was getting very little work as a "fallout" of raising her voice.
"Did she go to the Hema Committee? Your lordships should ask her," Rohatgi submitted.
"I cannot answer that," Kumar said. Grover replied that she did not go to the Hema Committee.
Advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that it was Siddique who approached the complaint way back in 2014 by liking her photos and messaging her. "This is how grooming takes place," Grover said adding that in 2016, the accused invited her for the preview and took her to the Mascot hotel. "It was rape which happened there," she said.
Regarding the delay, Grover said that it was after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report and after the Kerala High Court took cognizance of the issue that she mustered the courage.
"You were bold enough to post on Facebook" Justice Trivedi commented. Grover said that for a woman to come forward with a complaint of rape, it takes immense courage.
Kumar said that the custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary to get details about his social media accounts.
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.
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.
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), Sr Adv Ranjit Kumar & Adv Nishe Rajan Shonkar(for State) and Advocate Vrinda Grover (for complainant)
