Why Kerala HC’s denial of bail to Malayalam actor Siddique is a perfect counter to the ‘belated complaint’ argument

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

Often, the legal system and society at large question the timing of a survivor’s actions rather than the trauma that influences these delays. The court’s rejection of this “uncharitable view” of Siddique’s legal team is a step towards eliminating this deep-rooted bias.

With the Hema Committee’s report on sexual misconduct in the Malayalam film industry now out, it is clear that the delay in reporting the perpetrator is often due to fear, coercion and the power dynamics that suppress voices. Many women in the industry have started speaking out about their “terrible experiences” at the hands of veteran actors.

In Siddique’s case, a young actress filed a complaint against him with the Thiruvananthapuram police in August over an alleged rape incident that occurred around 2018. She accused him of raping her in the posts mentioned in 2019 but later came forward and recorded her statement with the Hema Committee. She subsequently filed an FIR with the Thiruvananthapuram police, which forced Siddique to resign as general secretary of AMMA, the Malayalam Film Artists’ Association.

The court took seriously the sweeping statements on the matter and criticized the attack on the survivor’s late filing of the complaint. It described these as “reckless, defamatory and intended to damage the plaintiff’s image”.

The survivor in this case, in which Siddique applied for bail, like many others, had to endure years of trauma before she could speak her truth. Her defense in court of why his bail should be denied highlighted 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 that underscore the fact that delay in reporting cannot weaken the prosecution’s case. Furthermore, the Hema Committee’s findings appear to have emboldened many victims of sexual assault, including the one in the Siddique case.

Sharing the Supreme Court’s observations in the recent case *Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India* (2024), Justice Dias said, “A woman deserves respect irrespective of her status in society, her faith or beliefs.”

Siddique is charged with rape and criminal intimidation. The special investigation team set up to probe complaints from survivors of the Malayalam film industry who have alleged serious crimes like rape, molestation and mental harassment is now looking for this senior Malayalam actor. The police have also issued a notice in his name and published it along with his photograph in various Malayalam and English newspapers across Kerala. Siddique has been missing since the court rejected his bail application on September 24.

According to the survivor’s complaint to the police commissioner, Siddique first contacted her through Facebook in 2014. Over the years, he built a relationship with her and her family, offering her career support and encouraging her to enter the film industry. In 2016, she attended a preview of his film “Sukhamayirikatte” with her parents. This was the first time she met the defendant, as described 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 to star, and she met him in his hotel room.

When Siddique was alone with her in his hotel room, his behavior became predatory.

“The defendant had the survivor sit in a chair next to his bed and explained the adjustments and compromises that are expected of women in order to excel in this field. He then approached the survivor and, without her consent, grabbed her hand, squeezed her fingers, and said that her nails looked good and that he loved her nail polish color,” the court document states.

It also describes how she was forcefully pushed and restrained while inappropriate acts were committed against her. The survivor was in shock and although she tried to push the “accused” away, she was threatened and forced into submission.

“She told the defendant that she would tell people about the incident. But he told her that no one would believe her as she had no profile and her reputation was nil compared to his. The survivor was completely shaken and was able to flee the room completely shaken. Even after the incident, the defendant attempted to contact the survivor, but she refused to respond to his calls and blocked him,” the court document states.

The trauma was so intense that the survivor could not talk about it with her parents. It wasn’t until 2019 that she plucked up the courage to talk about it on social media.

“The survivor subsequently received threatening messages that prevented her from filing a complaint. The survivor has experienced immense trauma, fear and suffering and still fears for her life. Therefore, urgent intervention is required. Following the complaint, the FIR was registered against the accused,” the bereaved’s lawyer argued why Siddique should be arrested and denied bail.

While seeking bail, Siddique’s lawyer alleged that there was inordinate delay in filing the complaint and alleged that the FIR was registered only eight years later, proving the falsehood and hollowness of the crime. The survivor did not provide a plausible explanation for the excessive delay in filing the complaint.

The court held that a delay in filing a complaint did not weaken the prosecution’s arguments. If there has been a delay, this is not a reason to dismiss the case, especially if a bail application is being considered.

Justice CS Dias of the Kerala High Court rejected Siddique’s bail application, stating that “victims of sexual abuse and assault may face psychological, emotional and social barriers that lead to delay in reporting the matter, which is in context the situation must be understood.” Trauma. The survivor too must have gone through a lot of turmoil and only after serious consideration did she decide to file the FIR.”

Explaining the reasons for denying bail, the court said that after an overall examination of the facts, the nature, gravity and seriousness of the allegations made against the plaintiff and the evidence, it is prima facie apparent that the plaintiff is involved in the was involved in the crime. The plaintiff’s interrogation in custody is necessary for the proper investigation of the crime.

Siddique’s lawyer argued that the survivor had not alleged in her social media posts that the complainant had sexual intercourse, so the charge under Section 375 of the IPC was not applicable. The lawyer also argued that the survivor is outspoken and does not hesitate to falsely accuse others, making it unlikely that she would be afraid to file a complaint against someone who misbehaved with her.

It was also argued that “the survivor used the ‘MeToo’ hashtag, which shows that she is trying to blackmail the petitioner.” Siddique’s lawyer further alleged that the survivor had repeatedly made defamatory posts against the petitioner and published them in print, visual and social media and “the petitioner’s silence has left the survivor insecure”. They argued that the case and allegations were made 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. Since the complaint is received very late, there is no need for detention and custodial interrogation of the plaintiff to collect evidence,” argued Siddique’s lawyer.

Siddique’s lawyers also claimed that the delay in filing the case was an indication that the allegations made by the survivor were untrue and aimed at “denigrating the image” of the actor. They also stated that the survivor “did not provide a plausible explanation for the excessive delay.”

The survivor’s lawyer argued that “due to the plaintiff’s position of power, the survivor feared for her life, which is why she did not complain earlier.” After the Justice Hema Commission report was published and many stakeholders opened up, the survivor also gathered courage , to complain,” the bail document states.

In denying Siddique bail, Judge Dias’ reasoning was clear: the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence presented. “…the examination of the plaintiff in custody is necessary for the proper investigation of the crime, especially since his defense completely denies the incident and a potency test is to be carried out. Given the public prosecutor’s reasonable fears that the plaintiff could intimidate witnesses and tamper with evidence…”

The arguments in this case also highlight the larger struggle 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 labeled as frivolous.