The Supreme Court today granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique in a rape and criminal intimidation case, noting that the complaint was filed eight years after the alleged incident and the complainant in a social post had raised allegations of sexual harassment against various persons.

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 upon his joining the investigation as and when called. This was extended on October 22 and November 12 by the Court. Today's Order makes Siddique's anticipatory bail absolute.

At the outset of the hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Siddique, told the Court, "She has made complaints against all and sundry. Not against this man only. Is it possible?" and asked the Court to give weightage to the fact that the complaint was filed years after the alleged incident.

A two-Judge Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, without assigning elaborate reasons, considering the sensitivity of the case, said, "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 against about 14 people including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse as also the fact that she had not gone to the Hema Committee... we are inclined to accept the present appeal."

The Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition against the Kerala High Court’s Order dismissing Siddique’s Bail Application on September 24. The complaint filed in August after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report.

Responding to the submission made in the previous hearing that that Siddique had deactivated his Facebook after the First Information Report in the case was filed, Rohatgi said, "I don't keep a Facebook account (anymore)", on behalf of the actor. "That doesn't mean you will be spared." Justice Trivedi retorted. Rohatgi then asked the Court to take note that in a 2018 Facebook post, the complainant had listed 14 names of persons who she claimed had "sexually, mentally, verbally, emotionally abused me"; this list included Siddique, an actor, a photographer and a director.

"She had the courage to post complaints on Facebook (but) not go to the police?", Justice Trivedi asked, which Rohatgi appreciated. Rohatgi said Siddique's case is that in 2016, the complainant came with her parents to a preview of his movie in Thiruvananthapuram, "I had never met her before that, nor met her after that. Her case is that after I told her to come to a hotel. You have come with your parents. Will you just walk away in somebody's car and go to a hotel... You are an actress also in public domain and you will keep quiet?"

Rohatgi noted that Siddique was the general secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists and the complaint is a member of the Women in Cinema Collective, and there has been "friction" between the two bodies.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State of Kerala, replied to Justice Trivedi's question on the complainant posting on social media about the alleged incident, but not officially filing a complainant by saying that most victims only found courage to file complaints in the aftermath of the Justice Hema Committee Report. He added that process of recording statements of witnesses is underway, "the proximity of the victim and the accused has already been verified" and that 22 witnesses have been examined till now, with more to be examined.

Ranjit Kumar reiterated the State's claim that Siddique was not cooperating with the investigation and emphasised on the need for custodial interrogation. "He asks what is the relevancy of these questions" Ranjit Kumar said. In the hearing on October 22, he told Court, "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.”

Justice Trivedi asked Advocate Vrinda Grover, who was appearing for the complainant, if the complainant was still working in cinema, to which Grover replied that the complainant was getting "very little work" on account of her raising her voice.

Vrinda Grover said this is not a case where an actress "went on her own will to meet a superstar. He likes her photographs. He contacts her. She is way younger (than him). This is how grooming takes place (when a young actress is told) 'I like your photographs', 'You have a chance in the film industry'."

The complainant's case, she explained, is that Siddique invited her to the movie preview after which he said "'I need to discuss something about the film industry with you', takes her to Mascot hotel. It is a case of rape that took place in the hotel. This is not just about reputations. (It is about) the rampant sexual assault and abuse that is taking place."

Vrinda Grover, replying to Justice Trivedi's query on delay in filing of complaint, said, the complainant had attempted to talk about the incident, but there was a backlash on social media "through his followers and orchestrated through him. It is only after the Hema Committee report and the High Court of Kerala taking cognisance of the matter that women came forward. He [Siddique] had told her nobody will believe you and you cannot do anything against me. The reason she was silent is that."

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

Justice Bela M TrivediJustice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tushar Kohli