Rape case: Supreme Court grants anticipatory bail to Siddique
Siddique was charged under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Siddique was charged under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Siddique was charged under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
New Delhi: The apex court has granted anticipatory bail to Malayalam actor Siddique, who is accused in a rape case, on Tuesday. The bench, consisting of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, said that the trial court is at liberty to set other conditions for the anticipatory bail.
The veteran actor will have to deposit his passport and cooperate with the investigating officer in the probe, the bench added. The top court also took note of the fact that the complaint in the case was filed in August, eight years after the alleged incident took place in 2016.
It was on November 12, that the Supreme Court extended his interim anticipatory bail by one week. In a recently submitted affidavit, Siddique denied the allegations against him. His defence argued that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) fabricated accusations not mentioned by the complainant. Siddique further claimed that the police are orchestrating a "media trial" against him.
It was in August the Museum police in Thiruvananthapuram charged the actor under sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant alleged that Siddique sexually assaulted her at the Mascot Hotel in Thiruvananthapuram on January 28, 2016.
On September 24, the Kerala High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges and the need for custodial interrogation. However, the Supreme Court granted him protection from arrest on September 30.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT), formed to probe multiple sexual assault cases within the Malayalam film industry, questioned Siddique twice, on October 7 and October 12. According to the SIT, he refused to cooperate during the interrogations, and they confirmed no further notices would be issued for his appearance.
This case is one of several against high-profile figures in the Malayalam film industry that emerged after the Justice Hema Committee report.