The anticipatory bail plea submitted by actor Siddique, the former general secretary of AMMA (Association of Malayalam Movie Artists), has been dismissed by the High Court of Kerala on September 24. The judgment, which made a categorical statement on how a crime of rape should be viewed, specifically stated that the accused should be arrested for the purpose of investigation. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the Bilkis Bano case, Justice C. S. Dias held that “a woman deserves respect, howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society.”
The defence counsel’s argument that the delay of eight years in registering the FIR should be taken into account has been dismissed by the court. The incident occurred in 2016, and the FIR was registered in 2024, soon after the release of the Hema Committee report. The single bench of the High Court accepted the prosecutor’s argument that the delay in registering an FIR in a sexual offense case can occur due to multiple reasons, which is a settled legal principle. The court held that “the delay in reporting the crime is not fatal to the prosecution. The circumstances and context surrounding the delay warrant careful examination after the trial.”
The complainant, a survivor, was an aspiring actor who wanted to make a career in cinema. According to the prosecution, she was contacted by actor Siddique through Facebook in 2014.
“He frequently interacted with her and her mother over the phone and via Skype. The accused encouraged the survivor to work in cinema and assured her of all help from his side. In 2016, the accused invited the survivor and her parents to attend the preview of his movie Sukhamayirikatte, which they attended. It was the first time the survivor met the accused. After the movie, the accused invited the survivor to the Mascot Hotel for lunch and to discuss a new film in which his son was proposed to play the lead role.”
The prosecution further explained how the accused forced himself on her and raped her. She was startled by the accused's acts and froze with fear. Though she tried her best to push him away, he confined her. She was terrified and angry and told him that she would tell people about the incident. According to the prosecution, he belittled her and told her that no one would believe her, as she did not have a profile and her standing was zero compared to his. “The survivor was shell-shocked and managed to escape from the room, completely shaken. Even after the incident, the accused attempted to contact the survivor, but she refused to respond to his calls and blocked him. The survivor belongs to a middle-class family. The trauma was so great that she could not reveal the whole incident even to her parents,” states the prosecution.
The prosecution also argued that there are a sufficient number of witnesses and incriminating material to establish that the actor and survivor were together in the hotel room where he raped her. “There is a stockpile of evidence against the petitioner (Actor Siddique). If the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, considering his influence and clout, he would tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary to investigate the crime, particularly his potency test, which must be conducted. If the application is allowed, it will send a wrong message to society,” argued the prosecution.
This is not the first time the victim has disclosed this incident in public. In a Facebook note from 2019, she had raised the allegation against Siddique. In a previous conversation with Outlook, the survivor said that it took her a long time to come out of the trauma and gather the courage to speak up. Though she revealed the incident in 2019, she received little support from society and could not move forward with legal action. According to her, she is one among many survivors who found courage through the release of the Hema Committee report and the Me Too movement.
The High Court has also turned down the defence counsel’s attempt to put the survivor in a bad light. The court categorically stated that “a woman’s experiences of sexual assault are not a reflection of her character but rather an indication of her suffering.” The defence lawyer characterised the survivor as “an outspoken and vociferous lady who has made unsubstantiated allegations against fourteen men (in another Facebook post); therefore, her complaint lacks credibility.” The High Court dismissed this argument and held that such a submission is unwarranted.
“The attempt to blame a woman for speaking out may be a strategy to silence her, which is hostile to the supremacy of the law. The courts are called to evaluate the merits of the application, free from any prejudicial assumptions about the survivor’s character. The core of the matter is whether the petitioner has prima facie committed the offenses alleged against him and whether he is entitled to pre-arrest bail,” states the single bench in the 24-page judgment.
The court has also referenced the delay in releasing the Hema Committee report by the government. “Although the Expert Committee submitted the report to the government in 2019, mysteriously, the government maintained a sphinx-like silence for five years. Ultimately, it was only through the intervention of this court that the report saw the light of day,” states the judgment.
The Special Investigation Team is left with no option but to arrest Siddique. However, the police have not been able to trace him so far.
