Malayalam film actor Siddique
x
The court expressed concern about the possibility of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, given the influential position of the accused, Siddique, a prominent character actor in Malayalam cinema | File photo

Sexual assault case: Kerala HC quotes Bilkis Bano order, denies relief to Siddique

In deciding to deny pre-arrest bail to Siddique, the court weighed several factors, including gravity of accusations and necessity of custodial interrogation


In a significant ruling that has sent shockwaves through the Malayalam film industry, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a pre-arrest bail application of actor Siddique in a sexual assault case. The judgment, delivered by Justice CS Dias, pertains to a case involving Siddique allegedly sexually assaulting a young woman in 2016.

In his 22-page order, Justice Dias has meticulously addressed several key aspects of the case, beginning with the contentious issue of the delay in reporting the incident. The defence counsel had argued that the eight-year gap between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint undermined the credibility of the accusations. However, the court took a nuanced view of this delay.

Right to dignity and respect

In his concluding remarks, Justice Dias quoted the recent Supreme Court observation from the case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool vs Union of India, commonly known as the Bilkis Bano case. The judge stated, “A woman deserves respect howsoever high or low she may be otherwise considered in society or to whatever faith she may follow or any creed she may belong to”, emphasizing the fundamental right to dignity and respect for all women, regardless of their social status or background.

In deciding to deny pre-arrest bail to Siddique, the court weighed several factors. Justice Dias emphasized the gravity and seriousness of the accusations, noting that the materials placed on record prima facie showed the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The judgment stressed the necessity of custodial interrogation for proper investigation, particularly given the actor’s total denial of the incident and the need for a potency test.

Possibility of intimidation, evidence tampering

The court also expressed concern about the possibility of witness intimidation and evidence tampering, given the influential position of the accused. This consideration highlights the challenges in prosecuting cases involving powerful individuals and the court’s role in ensuring a fair investigation.

Citing precedents set by the Supreme Court, Justice Dias emphasized that in cases of sexual offence, delays in lodging complaints are not uncommon and should be understood in the context of the trauma experienced by survivors. The judgment referenced the case of State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh, which established that courts must consider the various psychological, emotional, and social barriers that may prevent a victim from immediately reporting such crimes.

Interpretation of rape law

Another significant aspect of the judgment was the court’s interpretation of the rape law. The defence had contended that the absence of allegations of penetrative sexual intercourse meant that the offence of rape was not applicable. However, Justice Dias clarified that under Section 375 of the IPC, the definition of rape includes acts such as penetration by any means and oral sexual acts, which were alleged in this case.

The judgment made reference to the recently publicized Justice Hema Committee report on issues faced by women in the film industry. Justice Dias noted that the release of this report, which had been mysteriously shelved for five years, may have emboldened victims such as the survivor in this case to come forward with their complaints.

Characterization of survivor “unwarranted”

The court also addressed attempts by the defence to characterize the survivor as “outspoken and vociferous”, firmly rejecting such characterizations as unwarranted and potentially reflective of attempts to silence women who speak out against abuse.

The case, which has captured public attention due to the status of the accused in the film industry, stems from a complaint filed by the survivor after an eight-year delay. Siddique, a prominent character actor in Malayalam cinema and the former general secretary of the actor’s association AMMA, was booked under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, he had to resign from the post of general secretary of the association.

Read More
Next Story