Actor Siddique Is Not Cooperating With Investigation, Appears For Questioning With Written Statement: Kerala Tells Apex Court

The Supreme Court has extended the interim protection granted to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape and criminal intimidation case. The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against the Kerala High Court’s Order dismissing Siddique’s Bail Application on September 24, 2024.

On September 30, the Supreme Court had directed that in the event of arrest in the case, Siddique shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Trial Court and to his joining the investigation as and when called.

The Division Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was inclined to hear the matter in detail today, but then adjourned it on the request of the senior counsel appearing for Siddique.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and V. Giri appeared for Siddique, Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar appeared for the State of Kerala and Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for the complainant.

Giri asked the Court for time to file a rejoinder reply against a status report recently filed by the Kerala police, which was granted.

Justice Trivedi noted that the complaint was filed eight years after the alleged incident. To this, Ranjit Kumar replied that it took this long because the complainant only found courage recently after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report. He also said that the report was kept under wraps for five years, before the High Court ordered its release, upholding a State Information Commission Order.

Ranjit Kumar said that the status report records that 30 First Information Reports (FIR) have been filed against various persons in the aftermath of the Justice Hema Committee Report, adding that the women complainants “are feeling demoralised that it is possible that we will not get justice."

Justice Trivedi asked if the State and complainant’s apprehension was that Siddique could destroy evidence. "My apprehension is that he is not cooperating. He comes prepared with a written statement, he gives it and says I don’t want to answer anything more. I can’t recollect anything.” Ranjit Kumar said. Countering this, Giri said, "This is completely incorrect. My client does not do that”.

The second apprehension, Ranjit Kumar said, is based on Siddique’s closure of his Facebook account, compelling the State to “ask for third-parties for details” about his past online activities. Grover added that he had closed down his account after the FIR was filed.

“She (the complainant) repeatedly raised the issue. It is very difficult to go against a superstar and survive in the industry and she has already paid a price for that as have many others. Now there’s a report which says compromise and adjustment is the pattern in the industry,” Grover said.

Towards the end of the hearing, Rohatgi joined Giri in appearing for Siddique. “We don’t allow two senior counsels (to appear for one party),” Justice Trivedi said in a lighter vein.

The Court will take up the matter for further hearing after four weeks.

Cause Title: Siddique v. State of Kerala And Anr. [SLP(Crl) 13463/2024]