NEW DELHI/KOCHI: In a relief for actor Siddique, the Supreme Court on Monday granted him interim protection from arrest in a rape case registered against him based on a complaint by an actress.
While considering the actor’s petition, a bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued notices to the state government and the victim and sought their replies within two weeks.
Siddique had moved the apex court after the High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on September 24. The actor has remained elusive ever since the bail was denied.
“In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the case registered by the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, he shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the trial court and subject to his joining the investigation and remaining present before the investigating officer as and when called upon to do so, till the next date of hearing,” the court said.
The prosecution stated that the accused sexually assaulted the victim at Mascot Hotel, Thiruvananthapuram, in 2016. There are witnesses and incriminating materials to establish that the petitioner and survivor were together in the hotel room. The offences alleged in the FIR registered by the Museum police station are under Section 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it stated.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Siddique, submitted that other actors accused in rape cases have been granted bail by the trial court. The complaint was filed by the actress in 2024, after a lapse of eight years, the counsel said.
‘Siddique ready to cooperate with probe’
Siddique’s counsel said the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation by the special investigation team.
The bench asked advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared on behalf of the victim, about the reason for the delay in registering the complaint.
The lawyer replied that the Justice Hema Committee report, which exposed the shocking harassment and sexual exploitation faced by women in the Malayalam film industry, has to be understood in the larger context.
“In 2014, the complainant was only 19-years-old. He approached her on Facebook and said he liked her picture. In 2016, she was invited to a preview by a superstar. I have given detailed descriptions regarding what happened in the hotel,” Grover said. “This is not a Kerala-centric issue. What prevented women across Hollywood from raising their voice against Harvey Weinstein-like people?” she said.
The court then asked: “What were you doing for eight years? What prevented you from filing a complaint for eight years?”
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing in the matter for the Kerala government, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to Siddique.
“He has acted in 365 Malayalam movies. It is not possible to talk about such perpetrators by victims,” Bhati said.
The High Court while denying bail to Siddique has observed that his custodial interrogation is inevitable for properly investigating the crime, especially since his defence is a total denial of the incident.
(With inputs from agencies)
