Why Kerala HC’s denial of bail to Malayalam actor Siddique is perfect against ‘late complaint’ argument

The Kerala High Court’s decision to deny bail to Malayalam actor Siddique is a stark reminder that delay in filing a complaint by a survivor does not amount to false accusation or malicious intent. Rather, it reflects the complex and difficult reality victims of assault face when they come forward.

Often, the legal system and society as a whole question a survivor’s timing of action rather than the trauma that accounts for these delays. The court’s rejection of this “uncharitable view” taken by Siddique’s legal team is a step toward eliminating this deep-rooted bias.

With the Hema Committee’s report on sexual misconduct in the Malayalam film industry now public, it is becoming clear that the delay in reporting the offender is often the result of fear, coercion and stifling power dynamics. the voices. Many women in the industry have started speaking out about their “horrible experiences” at the hands of A-list actors.

In the Siddique case, a young actress filed a complaint against him with the Thiruvananthapuram police in August regarding an alleged rape incident that occurred around 2018. She accused him of raping her in messages mentioned in 2019, but then came forward and recorded it. declaration with the Hema Committee. She then filed an FIR with the Thiruvananthapuram police, which forced Siddique to resign as general secretary of AMMA, the Association of Malayalam Cinema Artists.

The court took the sweeping statements made on the matter very seriously and criticized the attack on the survivor’s delay in filing the complaint, calling it “frivolous, defamatory and aimed at tarnishing the image of the applicant.”

The survivor of that case, in which Siddique applied for bail, had to endure years of trauma, like many others, before she could speak her truth. Her defense in court as to why she should be denied bail illustrates the brutality she faced, and her lawyer argued that Siddique should be arrested and not released on bail.

The Kerala High Court cited several Supreme Court precedents which underline the fact that delay in reporting cannot weaken the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the Hema Committee’s findings appear to have emboldened many victims of sexual assault, including that in Siddique’s case.

Agreeing with the observations of the Supreme Court in the recent case of *Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India* (2024), Justice Dias said: “A woman deserves respect irrespective of her position in society, faith or beliefs. »

Siddique faces charges of rape and criminal intimidation. The special investigation team set up to probe the complaints of survivors of the Malayalam film industry, who have alleged serious offenses such as rape, assault and mental harassment, is now looking for this A-list Malayalam actor plan. The police also issued an alert notice in his name, publishing it in various Malayalam and English newspapers in Kerala, along with his photo. Siddique has been missing since the court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on September 24.

According to the survivor’s complaint to the police commissioner, Siddique first connected with her on Facebook in 2014. Over the years, he developed a relationship with her and her family, providing professional support and encouraging him to join the film industry. In 2016, she attended a premiere of her film “Sukhamayirikatte” with her parents. It was the first time she met the accused, as stated in the bail order. After the film, he invited her to lunch at the Mascot Hotel to discuss a new film in which his son was supposed to star, and she met him in his hotel room.

Once alone with her in her hotel room, Siddique’s behavior became predatory.

“The defendant sat the survivor in a chair next to her bed and explained to her the adjustments and compromises that are expected of women to excel in the field. After that, he approached the survivor and, without her consent, grabbed her hand, squeezed her fingers and told her that her nails looked beautiful and that he liked the color of her nail polish.” , indicates the court document.

It further describes how she was pushed and forcefully held down while inappropriate acts were perpetrated against her. The survivor was in shock and although she tried to push the “accused” away, she was threatened and forced to submit.

“She told the accused she would tell people about the incident. But he told her that no one would believe her, because she had no profile and her position was zero compared to his. The survivor was shocked and managed to escape the room, completely shaken. Even after the incident, the defendant attempted to contact the survivor, but she refused to answer his calls and blocked him,” the court document states.

The trauma was so intense that the survivor could not tell her parents about it. It was only in 2019 that she found the courage to talk about it on social media.

“Subsequently, the survivor received threatening messages, which prevented her from filing a complaint. The survivor lives with immense trauma, fear and distress and still fears for her life. Urgent intervention is therefore necessary. Following the complaint, the FIR was registered against the accused,” argued the survivor’s lawyer explaining why Siddique should be arrested and denied bail.

While seeking bail, Siddique’s lawyer alleged that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint, saying the FIR was registered eight years later, which proved the falsity and the hollow nature of the crime. The survivor has provided no plausible explanation for the excessive delay in filing her complaint.

The court held that a delay in filing a complaint did not weaken the prosecution’s case. If there has been a delay, this is not grounds for dismissing the case, especially when it involves a bail application.

Justice CS Dias of the Kerala High Court, while rejecting Siddique’s bail plea, said “victims of sexual abuse and assault may face psychological, emotional and social barriers that result in delays in reporting the matter, which must be understood in the context of the trauma. The survivor also had to go through great difficulties and it was only after careful consideration that she decided to lodge the FIR.”

Stating the grounds on which bail was denied, the court said that after an overall consideration of the facts, the nature, gravity and seriousness of the charges against the petitioner, as well as the evidence, showed prima facie l the applicant’s involvement in the crime. The interrogation of the applicant in police custody is necessary for the proper investigation of the crime.

Siddique’s lawyer argued that the survivor had not claimed in her social media posts that the petitioner had had sexual intercourse, so the charge under Section 375 of the IPC did not apply. The lawyer also argued that the survivor is outspoken and has no qualms about falsely accusing others, making it unlikely that she would be afraid to press charges against someone who behaved badly towards her .

It was also argued that “the survivor used the hashtag ‘MeToo’, which shows that she is trying to blackmail the petitioner.” Siddique’s lawyer further claimed that the survivor had repeatedly published and published defamatory messages against the petitioner in print, visual and social media, and that “the silence of the petitioner had baffled the survivor.” They argued that the case and charges were framed only to put Siddique behind bars.

“The petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record. He is prepared to comply with all conditions set by this court and to cooperate with the investigation. As the complaint is very late, detention and interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary to collect evidence,” argued Siddique’s lawyer.

Siddique’s lawyers further claimed that the delay in filing the case indicated that the allegations made by the survivor were not genuine and aimed at “maligning the image” of the actor. They also said the survivor “gave no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay.”

The survivor’s attorney argued that “the survivor feared for her life due to the applicant’s position of power, which is why she did not file charges sooner.” After the release of the Justice Hema Commission report and the exposure of many actors, the survivor also found the courage to file a complaint,” the bail document said.

In denying bail to Siddique, Justice Dias’ reasoning was clear: the seriousness of the charges and the evidence presented. “…the interrogation of the applicant in custody is necessary for the proper investigation of the crime, especially since his defense completely denies the incident and an activity test must be carried out. Given the prosecution’s reasonable apprehension that the applicant may intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence…”

The arguments in this case also speak to the broader fight for justice in sexual assault cases in India and the need to create a system that recognizes survivors’ trauma, including the fear of being defamed, slandered or even described as frivolous.