A day after the Kerala High Court denied bail to Malayalam actor Siddique, he has approached the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail. In his petition filed on September 25, the senior actor has claimed that he has been “falsely implicated in a false and bogus case” because of an ongoing tussle between the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (A.M.M.A.) and Women in Cinema Collective (WCC).
A.M.M.A. is the biggest film industry body for Malayalam movie actors dominated by senior actors and was until recently headed by Malayalam superstar Mohanlal. WCC was formed in May 2017 by women actors, directors and technicians from the Malayalam film industry, in the aftermath of the 2017 actor assault case and primarily works to highlight the gender disparity in the industry. The founding group consisted of 15 women, including Anjali Menon, Deedi Damodaran, Beena Paul, Manju Warrier, Parvathy, Remya Nambeesan, and Rima Kallingal.
Siddique was booked by the Museum police in Thiruvananthapuram on August 27 under charges of rape and criminal intimidation, based on the complaint filed by a young actor. On September 24, the HC dismissed his anticipatory bail saying that there is prima facie evidence to show Siddique’s involvement in the crime and that his custodial interrogation was ‘inevitable’ for the case.
Stating that he was a 65-year-old senior citizen and there was no basis for apprehension that he may intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence, Siddique submitted at the Supreme Court that he would abide by all terms and conditions put forth by the court when granting him the anticipatory bail.
Meanwhile, Siddique is on the run and a lookout notice has been issued on several newspapers across the country. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) tasked with the investigation of sexual harassment cases after the release of the Hema Committee report has issued a lookout notice for Siddique.
Though Siddique resigned from the general secretary position of A.M.M.A., as soon as the woman went public with her experiences, he has denied the allegations. The survivor had spoken up about the alleged assault in 2019 too. But in the wake of the Hema Committee report which has triggered a new Me Too wave in the Malayalam film industry, the survivor approached the police and filed a complaint.
As TNM reported earlier, Siddique’s main contention for seeking bail was built entirely on discrediting the survivor by pulling up posts from her Facebook account and citing the delay in filing a complaint. He is likely to repeat the same arguments in the Supreme Court.
TNM went through all the 17 annexures, of which 13 were the survivor’s Facebook posts, and found that many of them were unrelated to the current case. A few of them were the woman’s social commentary while others were her posts venting frustration about people who have allegedly harassed her. (Verbally, physically and indulged in cyber bullying). Siddique however claimed that these posts showed the woman was capable of vitriol and therefore questioned why such a person who is unafraid on social media did not file a police complaint. The Kerala HC rejected his arguments, said that the character assassination was “unwarranted and uncharitable”, and rejected the bail plea.
Read our story