SC grants protection from arrest to Siddique in rape case
The state government, which formed the justice Hema panel in 2019, vehemently opposed any relief to the popular actor.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted protection from arrest to Malayalam film actor Siddique in an alleged rape case filed against him by an actress after a judicial committee examining instances of violence and discrimination against women in Malayalam film industry made explosive revelations based on statements by women artists against leading actors and directors in the field.
A bench headed by justice Bela M Trivedi observed, “I am sure this is not the only industry where this is taking place,” as the court questioned the victim’s eight-year long wait in filing her complaint. The victim, then 19, was looking for a chance to work in films and was invited by Siddique for a preview screening at a hotel on January 28, 2016. However, the complaint was lodged recently after the justice Hema commission report was made public in August this year.
Observing this delay in filing complaint, the bench, also comprising justice Satish Chandra Sharma, said, “What prevented you to come forward for eight years,” as it was inclined to grant interim protection to the cine star and issuing notice on his petition seeking anticipatory bail.
The court order said, “In the meantime, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall not be arrested.” The relief given by the court was subject to the condition that Siddique will cooperate with the investigation and will abide by the conditions, if any, to be laid down by the trial court.
The state government, which formed the justice Hema panel in 2019, vehemently opposed any relief to the popular actor. Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appearing for the Pinarayi Vijayan-led Kerala government said that the state had constituted a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases lodged pursuant to the revelations in the report. She said that the statement of the accused is to be recorded even as he remains untraced.
The victim appearing through advocate Vrinda Grover told the court that being new into the profession at the time of the incident, her version was never accepted. It was in 2014, when Siddique expressed interest in the victim seeing her Facebook posts. At that time, Siddique was a famed star in the Malayalam film industry. Grover said, “I have given detailed description of the incident that occurred in the hotel room in 2016.”
Even the state had supported her version claiming that the hotel records matched the victim’s statement. Grover said that the justice Hema commission has elaborated the reasons that prevented women like her to openly lodge complaints.
Siddique was the secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), a prominent actors’ body in Kerala, till he resigned following the registration of rape complaint against him.
The actor was represented in court by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi who questioned the silence of the victim from 2016. He said, “I am now 67 years and have acted in over 380 movies. In the last 40 years of my career, nothing of the sort alleged against me has taken place.” Further, he informed the court that the victim had come to the hotel with her parents and doubted her version in the complaint.
ASG Bhati said, “Some pockets exist in our society where there is no sunlight. This is one such area. He is a superstar in Malayalam cinema and no newcomer would dare file complaint against him.” She pointed out that the justice Hema commission report has detailed 29 such cases where women were abused in the name of getting offers in films. She said that the investigation in the 29 cases are on while the statement of the victim in the present case has been recorded.
Actors and directors facing similar allegations were granted anticipatory bail by the high court, while Siddique faced the prospect of arrest following the HC judgment denying him pre-arrest bail on September 24.
The charges against him are under rape (IPC Section 376) and criminal intimidation (IPC Section 506) registered at Museum police station in Thiruvananthapuram soon after the victim dared to come forward following the report which discussed her case.
The HC order noted the gravity and seriousness of the accusations levelled against the actor along with the material on record that strongly hinted towards his involvement in the crime. The state had issued a look out notice against him as he remained underground and failed to come forward for custodial interrogation.