The Supreme Court bench of Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique, who was accused of rape and criminal intimidation. The complaint was lodged eight years after the incident, which allegedly occurred in 2016. The court considered the delay in filing the complaint and the complainant's failure to report the incident to the Justice Hema Committee, which investigates such complaints, while addressing the present case.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the complainant was asked by Justice Trivedi if the complainant was still working in cinema and the counsel replied that the complainant was getting “very little work” since she was raising her voice.The counsel also pointed out that this is not a case where an actress "went on her own will to meet a superstar. He likes her photographs. He contacts her. She is way younger (than him). This is how grooming takes place (when a young actress is told) 'I like your photographs', 'You have a chance in the film industry'."

It was the complainant's case as explained by the counsel that Siddique invited her to the movie review after which he told her,"I need to discuss something about the film industry with you. He then takes her to Mascot hotel. It is a case of rape that took place in the hotel. This is not just about reputations. (It is about) the rampant sexual assault and abuse that is taking place."

Replying to Justice Trivedi's query on delay of eight years in filing of complaint, the counsel replied that the complainant had attempted to talk about the incident, but there was a backlash on social media "through his followers and orchestrated through him. It is only after the Hema Committee report and the High Court of Kerala taking cognisance of the matter that women came forward. He [Siddique] had told her nobody will believe you and you cannot do anything against me. The reason she was silent is that."

Appearing for the alleged accused Siddique, Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi told the court that Siddique was the general secretary of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists [ AMMA] and the complainant is a member of the Women in Cinema Collective [wcc], and there has been "friction" between the two bodies.He also informed the court that Siddiqui had stated that, "I am a senior citizen, an actor based in Kerala. The complaint is made in August 2024 about an incident which happened eight years ago in 2016,"

"What was her age then?", questioned Justice Bela Trivedi? The counsel replied that she was 21 years old. However, Advocate Vrinda Grover, for the complainant, stated that she was 19 years old then. Rohatgi said that the victim had made complaints against "all and sundry" and referred to certain Facebook posts which raised allegations against 14 persons, including directors, photographers, doctors etc .Justice Trivedi then stated, "You had the courage to post the complaint on Facebook but not to go to the police?" Rohatgi pointed out that Siddique had filed a complaint against the complainant on August 26th 2024, even before the complainant's complaint was filed on August 27th 2024. He added that Siddique was a member of the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), while the complainant was part of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC), suggesting some "friction" between these organizations.Rohatgi mentioned that his client has been cooperative with the Kerala police, attending all summons.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the State of Kerala, stated that it was acknowledged that Siddique had invited the victim, a relatively unknown actress, to a film preview. He questioned the reason for this invitation.Justice Trivedi noted that the victim attended the preview with her parents, suggesting a prior acquaintance with Siddique.

Ranjit Kumar added, "My apprehension is two-fold. One is, he is not cooperating. When he is coming, he comes with a prepared statement that he won't answer anything more and that he can't recollect. Second is, after the FIR, he has closed his Facebook account. He does not want us to get access to that. We have to approach third parties to access".

Ranjit Kumar argued that the protection given to Siddique was undermining the multiple FIRs filed by other women actors. Advocate Vrinda Grover emphasised the complainant's difficulties in challenging a powerful industry figure, citing systemic issues of compromise and adjustment highlighted in the Justice Hema Committee report. Grover also stressed the significant bravery needed for the complainant to speak out, considering the industry's power dynamics and her continuous efforts to raise awareness since 2018.

On October 22, Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma extended the anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique by two weeks to allow his advocate time to respond to the Kerala Police's status report. Despite Siddique's compliance with initial summons, the police argued that he was not cooperating and had destroyed evidence, including deactivating his social media accounts. The complainant's delayed FIR was attributed to fear and the revelations of the Justice Hema Committee report on abuses in the Malayalam cinema industry, with her vocal efforts on Facebook since 2018 being highlighted.

Regarding the delay in filing the FIR, Kumar explained that it should be viewed in light of the Justice Hema Committee's report, published in August 2024, which highlighted the prevalence of sexual exploitation and harassment of women in Malayalam cinema.

Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court denied Siddique's anticipatory bail request, citing sufficient evidence of his involvement in a crime. Siddique challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, with both the State and the victim filing caveats. The High Court dismissed Siddique's claim that the delay in filing the FIR invalidated the case, stating that such delays must be considered within the context of the trauma experienced by victims of sexual abuse. Furthermore, the court had concluded that the alleged actions fell under the expanded definition of "rape."

The Kerala High Court had also observed that ,"Whether the survivor's above explanation is plausible will have to be ultimately evaluated and decided after a full-fledged trial. Nevertheless, the contention that the above delay vitiates the entire prosecution case is not a ground for scrapping the complaint, particularly while considering a bail application. Victims of sexual abuse and assault may experience psychological, emotional and social barriers that feed the delay in reporting the matter, which necessarily has to be understood in the context of the trauma,"

After due considerations the Supreme Court made the following observations:

"We deem it appropriate not to assign elaborate reasons, particularly considering the sensitivity of the case. However, considering the fact that the complainant had filed the complaint almost eight years after the alleged incident which had taken place in 2016 and the complainant had also posted the posts on Facebook somewhere in 2018 making allegations about 14 people including the appellant with regard to the alleged sexual abuse and also the fact that she had not gone to the Hema Committee, which was set up by the Government of Kerala, we are inclined to accept the present appeal,"

The accused shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court, including the condition that the appellant shall deposit the passport before the Trial Court and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer in carrying out the investigation. It is needless to say that any breach of the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court for releasing him on bail, shall entail cancellation of the bail.

Case Details: SIDDIQUE v/s STATE OF KERALA & ANR.