Published Nov 19, 2024 | 12:45 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 19, 2024 | 12:46 PM
Actor Siddique.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 19 November, granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape case. He was booked following allegations by a young female actor.
An apex court bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma also made the interim anticipatory bail granted on 30 September ‘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, reported LiveLaw.
The court put forth the condition that Siddique should deposit his passport before the trial court and cooperate with the investigation. It added that the trial court is at liberty to set other conditions for the anticipatory bail.
Siddique approached the Supreme Court after the Kerala High Court denied him anticipatory bail on 24 September.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for the actor, said the complaint was made in August 2024 about an incident which happened eight years ago, in 2016.
“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.
Rohtagi noted that Siddique filed a complaint against her on 26 August, a day before she filed one. He also added that the complainant was a member of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) and there is some “friction” between these organisations.
“You had the courage to post the complaint on Facebook but not to go to the police?” Justice Trivedi asked.
Advocate Vrinda Grover replied that she was getting very little work as a “fallout” of raising her voice.
Because of the friction between AMMA and WCC, the complaint was suddenly filed, replied Rohatgi and argued that the complainant was consistently improving her versions, raising questions about her credibility.
He claimed that the only instance where Siddique met the woman was in 2016 at the Nila theatre for the preview of a film and said that his client couldn’t hand over the gadgets he used in 2016, as they are no longer in his possession.
Rohatgi added that his client has cooperated with the Kerala police by appearing on all occasions he was summoned.
The complaint, filed by the actress, dates back to 2016 when she alleged that Siddique had sexually exploited her at the Mascot Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram. The two had reportedly attended a movie preview show at the Nila Theatre on the same day.
Police investigations found corroborating evidence, including hotel records from eight years ago, which confirm the actress’s presence at the Mascot Hotel.
While Siddique has maintained that he met the complainant in the presence of her parents, the high court’s decision to reject his bail suggests serious consideration of the evidence supporting the actress’s claims.
Following the filing of the complaint, Siddique resigned from his position as the general secretary of AMMA, the actors’ association.
The complaint against Siddique was one among the many that were registered against people working in the Malayalam film industry after the Hema Commission report on harassment of female actors in the industry was made public on 19 August.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil)
