Introduction

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked why it took eight years for the rape survivor to lodge complaint against Malayalam cine actor Siddique.

A Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while hearing the anticipatory bail plea filed by Siddique. "Complaint is filed after 8 years?" Justice Trivedi asked.

Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State of Kerala, said that the survivor had highlighted the incident on Facebook long back and it often takes time for a victim to gather courage to file a police complaint.

"She has been writing on Facebook. It took time to get the courage," Kumar said.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the victim, also echoed similar sentiments.

"It is not a question of silence for 8 years. It takes time and she has faced consequences," she said.

Kumar also said that Siddique has not been cooperating with the probe and has been destroying evidence.

He is destroying evidence and others are feeling demoralised. I will demonstrate how he has destroyed evidence. He gives written statement and says won't respond to summons and that he has forgotten (what happened). He has closed his FB and doesn't want us to get access to that so we will have to ask third parties," Kumar said.

Senior Advocate V Giri, appearing for Siddique, said that the allegation that the actor was destroying evidence, was totally unjustified. He also sought time to file rejoinder affidavit.Interestingly, Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi also appeared for Siddique but the Bench said that it will not allow two seniors to argue.The Court eventually adjourned the matter by two weeks to enable Siddique to file a rejoinder.

The interim protection granted to the actor on September 30 was also extended till the next hearing of the case.The Bench was hearing a plea by Siddique against an order passed by the Kerala High Court on September 24 rejecting bail to him.The allegations against the actor were made after the public release of the Justice K Hema Committee Report on August 19 this year.

The report revealed large-scale sexual abuse, 'casting couch' practices, and entrenched gender discrimination in the Malayalam film industry.The publication of the redacted report has led to a wave of sexual abuse allegations against several actors, directors and other film personalities.

The case against Siddique centers on allegations made by an actress who accused him of sexually assaulting her at the Mascot Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram back in 2016. According to her, this traumatic event left a lasting impact, deeply affecting her life and mental well-being. Siddique, for his part, has faced significant legal and social consequences as a result of the accusations, leading to a complex legal battle with both personal and public ramifications. The case draws attention to the devastating effects such experiences can have on individuals, as well as the broader societal conversations around justice, trauma, and accountability.

The investigation into this case is being handled by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up to probe the sexual abuse cases emerging after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee report.

After FIR was lodged, the actor absconded and moved the Kerala High Court for bail.

In his petition seeking anticipatory bail before the High Court, Siddique claimed that the woman complainant has been harassing him since 2019 by making repeated claims on social media that he tried to sexually misbehave with her at a theatre in 2016.

Further, she has now made a more serious allegation of rape at a different place the same year, the plea stated. The High Court eventually opined that the material placed on record prima facie showed that Siddique may be involved in the crime.

Custodial interrogation of the actor is inevitable for a proper investigation of the case, it added while rejecting the plea. This led to the appeal before the top court filed through advocate Ranjeeta Rohatgi. The Supreme Court granted him interim protection from arrest on September 30 and also sought the response of the State police.

In its response to the plea, the Kerala Police said that the plea by Siddique is an unfair attempt to malign the complainant-woman and violates the dignity of womanhood.Pertinently, the police claimed that there is a "stockpile of evidence" against Siddique and the police should be allowed to arrest him and interrogate him in custody.

[Case Title- Siddique v State of Kerala and anr]