Kerala actor rape case: SC grants anticipatory bail to Malayalam filmstar Siddique

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam film actor Siddique in an alleged rape case dating back to 2016 after a young actress accused the Kerala actor and 13 other persons of inviting her to a hotel and sexually abusing her on the pretext of giving her an opportunity to work in movies.
Granting him relief, a bench headed by justice Bela M Trivedi said, “Why were you silent for 8 years? You had the courage to post your complaint on Facebook in 2018 but not go to the police station.”
The female actor had not approached the justice K Hema Commission that was looking into allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment faced by women actors in Malayalam film industry. She approached the commission with her complaint on August 26, 2024, soon after the findings of the commission were made public.
Noting these facts to allow Siddique’s plea for anticipatory bail, the bench, also comprising justice SC Sharma, said, “The fact that she had not gone to the justice Hema Commission which was set apart by the Kerala high court, we are inclined to prayer in the appeal subject to conditions.” Earlier on September 30, the court had granted him interim protection from arrest.
The court said, “In the event of arrest, the appellant (Siddique) shall be released on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court.” In addition, the court directed him to deposit his passport with the trial court and cooperate with the investigating officer in the conduct of the investigation.
The bench did not give elaborate reasons for passing its order considering the sensitivity of the case.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Agarwal appeared for Siddique claiming that the complainant was indulging in character assassination as she kept silent over the allegations for 8 years and chose not even to approach the Hema Commission. Rohatgi said that his client only met the complainant in 2016 and since, has never met her.
The state government, which constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate complaints arising out of the Commission report, opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar said that the actor has not submitted his phone used during 2016 and has deactivated his Facebook account through which contact was established with the complainant.
The bench observed, “You had the courage to post your complaint on Facebook in 2018 making allegations about 14 persons including the appellant, a celebrity. What stopped you from approaching the police?”
Appearing for the victim, advocate Vrinda Grover said that ever since the Facebook post, she suffered a lot of backlash on the social media from Siddique fans. She only gathered courage to speak out after justice Hema Commission report was made public.
The state was wary that the order passed by the top court would have a detrimental effect on witnesses who have come forward to make similar allegations as in all, there are some FIRs being investigated against other artists in the Malayalam cinema. He requested the court to consider imposing a condition that while fixing conditions for bail, the public prosecutor should also be heard.
The bench was not inclined to accept the request. It said, “We have never passed such an order. We will not make any exception in this case.”
Siddique had approached the top court against an order of September 24 passed by the Kerala high court refusing to grant him anticipatory bail. On September 30, the top court issued notice on Siddique’s appeal and granted him interim protection from arrest. This order was extended from time to time.
The victim was 21 years at the time of incident. She alleged that in January 2016 the appellant had invited her to a Kerala hotel for a preview of an upcoming film.
Supporting the victim, the state in its affidavit before the top court said, “The investigation so far has already revealed the ill intent of the petitioner as he has attempted to destroy his mobile phones in the period he went absconding (prior to getting protection order from top court) in order to avoid examination of these devices by the police. A witness has testified to the same before the police. Hence the apprehension that the petitioner will further scuttle the investigation is well founded and based on events that have already unfolded in the brief span of time since the case was registered.”
The state’s affidavit also detailed notable cases of rape and sexual abuse pending trial in the case of former US President Donald Trump against whom case was filed in 2017 for an alleged incident prior to 1996. It even cited the case of Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein who is facing trial for cases of sexual harassment by women actors who came out with their accounts in 2018 over incidents involving him as far back as in 1990.
According to the state, Siddique’s custodial interrogation was vital for recovering the digital devices and the relevant data by retrieving it from the social media intermediaries.