The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to Malayalam cine actor Siddique in a rape case filed against him by an actress.
Justice CS Dias pronounced the order this morning.
The Court opined that the material placed on record prima facie showed that Siddique may be involved in the crime. It also noted that his defence is one of total denial of the incident, which makes it reasonable to apprehend that the powerful actor may attempt to influence witnesses.
The Court added that custodial interrogation of the actor is inevitable for a proper investigation of the case, while rejecting the pre-arrest bail plea.
"On overall scrutiny of the facts, the law on the point, and my reasoning given above, and on comprehending the nature, gravity and seriousness of the accusations alleged against the petitioner, coupled with the materials placed on record that prima facie shows the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is inevitable for the proper investigation of the crime, especially since his defence is a total denial of the incident and his potency test is to be conducted, and the reasonable apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may intimidate the witnesses and tamper with the evidence, I arrive at the irresistible conclusion that this is not a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court in favour of the petitioner," the order stated.
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 was registered based on a complaint by an actress who accused him of raping her at the Mascot Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram in 2016.
The actress, who initially hesitated to file a police complaint, later emailed the State Police Chief alleging that Siddique raped her after she refused to give in to his demands for sexual favors in exchange for a role in a Tamil movie.
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.
In his petition seeking anticipatory bail, Siddique has 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.
However, she has now made a more serious allegation of rape at a different place in the same year, the plea stated.
"It is clear that the defacto complainant is made aware that simple allegation of attempted sexual assault is bailable offence, and therefore, the petitioner could not be taken into custody and it is in order to make out a case warranting arrest and detention of the petitioner that the defacto complainant has now come up with an allegation of rape," Siddique's petition read.
This change in narrative shows that the complainant is deliberately attempting to implicate him in a false case, the actor contended.
The allegations have several inconsistencies and were made after considerable delay, he added.
The Court, however, today said that the delay alone cannot justify disregarding the survivor's complaint and that it has to be understood in the context of the trauma she may have suffered.
The Court also deprecated the argument that the survivor's complaint lacks credibility because she has made allegations against fourteen men. It said that the contention was unwarranted and that the Court would consider the matter without any prejudicial assumption about her character.
"The submission is unwarranted and reflects an uncharitable view of the survivor's circumstances. A woman’s experiences of sexual assault are not a reflection of her character but rather an indication of her suffering. The attempt to blame a woman for speaking out may be a strategy to silence her, which is hostile to the supremacy of the law," the Court observed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court ultimately dismissed Siddique's plea for anticipatory bail.
Siddique was represented by Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai and advocates Philip T Varghese and Sujesh Menon VB.
Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan appeared for the State.
Advocate V Harish represented the survivor.
[Read Order]