New Delhi: The Supreme Court witnessed an interesting set of arguments while considering Malayalam actor Siddique's interim bail plea in a rape case on Monday. While the defence counsel questioned the eight-year-delay in filing of the complaint, the prosecution drew a parallel between Siddique and infamous Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein during the hearing.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma on Monday granted interim protection from arrest to the actor and issued notice to the respondents, seeking their response to the actor's plea for anticipatory bail.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Siddique, argued before the court that his client was unfairly denied anticipatory bail, noting that others involved in similar cases had received bail. "Others got bail, but I was refused," Rohatgi said. He further pointed to an eight-year delay in filing the complaint, adding that the allegations were based on old Facebook posts. "A complaint was lodged in 2024, after 8 years. Just because I am a well-known actor...," he argued.

However, Advocate Vrindra Gover, appearing for the complainant, opposed Siddique's plea, asserting that his conduct was inappropriate. She explained that the complainant was only 19 years old when the alleged incident took place in 2014. Gover also recounted how Siddique first approached the complainant via Facebook and later invited her to a film preview in 2016, where the alleged incident occurred in a hotel.

"This is what happens when someone raises their voice against Harvey Weinstein-like individuals," Gover remarked, drawing a parallel to the infamous Hollywood producer’s misconduct. Harvey Weinstein is a former American film producer and convicted sex offender. Over a span of at least 30 years, dozens of women accused him of rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse.

Gover also justified the delay in filing the complaint, citing revelations from the Justice Hema Committee report, which highlighted the exploitation of women in the Malayalam film industry.

The State's counsel Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also opposed Siddique's plea for anticipatory bail, referencing his extensive film career, saying, "He acted in 365 Malayalam movies. It is not possible to talk about such perpetrators."

The controversy surrounding Siddique began following the release of the Justice Hema Committee report, which shed light on the challenges and abuses faced by women in the Malayalam cinema industry. The actress accused Siddique of sexually exploiting her in 2016, during a meeting in a hotel room where he allegedly promised her opportunities in the film industry. The accusations eventually led to the registration of an FIR against him under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Siddique's plea for anticipatory bail was previously dismissed by the Kerala High Court on September 24. The High Court noted that there was prima facie evidence of Siddique's involvement in the crime. The court also rejected the actor’s argument that the delay in filing the complaint undermined the prosecution's case, stating that such delays are common in cases of sexual abuse due to the psychological, emotional, and social barriers victims often face. Siddique challenged the Kerala High Court’s order in the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition. The State and the complainant have also filed caveats in the case.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)