The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to Malayalam actor Siddique in the rape case of a young actress.
The Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma further issued notice to the respondents.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioner, apprised the Bench that Siddique was seeking anticipatory bail in the matter on the grounds of delay. He said the complaint was filed in the matter in 2024, eight years after the incident.
Rohatgi further contended that there are some Facebook posts. Just because he was a well-known actor, the case has been registered.
Representing the complainant, Advocate Vrindra Gover contended that the complainant was only 19 years of age in 2014, when the alleged incident took place in a hotel.
Grover said Siddique approached the complainant on Facebook and liked her picture. In 2016, she was invited to a preview by a superstar. The complainant has submitted all details of the incident in her complaint, noted the Counsel, adding that this was what happened when a voice was raised against people like Harvey Weinstein.
However, the Bench orally remarked that the complaint was filed after a delay of eight years. It asked the girl what prevented her from filing a complaint for eight years.
Justifying the delay in filing the complaint, the counsel representing the state government mentioned the Justice Hema Committee report, stating that the revelations should be looked at in a larger context.
Opposing the anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, she said that there were cases, where there was no sunlight and no sanitation. Several cases were registered after the Justice Hema Committee report, she stated, adding that Siddique acted in 365 Malayalam movies. It was not possible to talk about such perpetrators.
On September 24, the Kerala High Court had dismissed Siddique’s petition seeking anticipatory bail, observing that the materials on record indicated the prima facie involvement of the actor in the crime.
Siddique filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against this order. 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.
She further 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.
The single-judge Bench of Justice CS Dias observed that whether the survivor’s above explanation was plausible would have to be ultimately evaluated and decided after a full-fledged trial.
The contention that the above delay vitiated the entire prosecution case was 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 could lead to the delay in reporting of the matter, which necessarily has to be understood in the context of the trauma, it noted.
The single-judge Bench further held that the acts alleged against Siddique would come within the ambit of the expanded definition of “rape”.