The Supreme Court on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to Malayalam film actor Siddique in a rape case and directed him to cooperate in the investigation.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma issued notices to the Kerala government and the victim in the case and sought their replies within two weeks.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Siddique challenging a Kerala high court order that denied him anticipatory bail.
"In the meantime, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.1192 of 2024 of 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 bench said.
The bench asked advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared in the court on behalf of the victim, about the reason for the delay in registering the complaint against Siddique.
The lawyer told the bench 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.
Representing Siddique in the matter, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi said a complaint was lodged in 2024, after a lapse of eight years.
Questioning Siddique's conduct, Grover said, "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."
"This is not a Kerala-centric issue. What prevented women across Hollywood from raising their voice against Harvey Weinstein-like people?" she added.
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 and said, "there are areas in the society where there is no sunlight and no sanitation".
"He has acted in 365 Malayalam movies. It is not possible to talk about such perpetrators by victims," Bhati said, adding that the state government is taking the matter very seriously and 29 cases relating to the Malayalam film industry have been investigated.
The high court on September 24 rejected Siddique's anticipatory bail plea in the rape case, saying in view of the seriousness of the accusations, his custodial interrogation is inevitable for a proper investigation of the crime.
It said since Siddique's defence was in "total denial of the incident", his potency test is yet to be conducted and there being a "reasonable apprehension" that he may intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence, "it is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of the court" to grant him the relief.
The high court, however, made it clear that the observations made by it in the order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
Siddique, who was booked for offences under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has claimed in his plea that the complainant female actor had subjected him to a "prolonged campaign of harassment and false accusations since 2019".
In his anticipatory bail plea before the high court, he had claimed that for the last five years, she repeatedly made unsubstantiated and false claims of sexual misbehaviour, including about "verbal sexual offers" made by him in a theatre in 2016.
"But now, she has raised a totally contradictory allegation of a more serious crime of rape at a different place in the same year," Siddique had said in his plea.
He had also felt that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint against him.
Opposing the anticipatory bail plea, the victim's lawyer had told the high court that the state police was allegedly not conducting a proper probe and had yielded to the actor's influence as it did not arrest him or recover the electronic evidence.
It was also contended on the victim's behalf that Siddique's custodial interrogation was necessary as he had committed a "heinous crime".
The prosecution too had opposed the anticipatory bail plea by arguing that the probe was at a "nascent stage" and there was "a stockpile of evidence against the petitioner-actor".
It had further said if Siddique was granted pre-arrest bail, he would tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses in view of "his influence and clout".
The prosecution had argued that the actor's "custodial interrogation was necessary to investigate the crime, particularly his potency test, which had to be invariably conducted".
Multiple FIRs have been registered against many high-profile Malayalam film personalities following allegations of sexual harassment against various directors and actors in the wake of the revelations in the Justice K Hema Committee report.
The committee was formed by the Kerala government after the 2017 actress assault case and its report revealed instances of harassment and exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.
Following the allegations of sexual harassment and exploitation against several actors and directors, the state government on August 25 announced the establishment of a seven-member special investigation team to probe the charges.
