Kochi: The survivor’s complaint is extremely grave and serious, the Kerala High Court said while rejecting actor Siddique’s anticipatory bail plea on Tuesday. Justice CS Dias, in his judgment, stated that based on the evidence presented before the court, a prima facie case exists against Siddique. The court also observed that the complainant had been subject to character assassination and reiterated that every woman deserves respect, irrespective of the circumstances.
The court pointed out that Siddique’s lawyer’s arguments appeared to be aimed at defaming the complainant. The defense argued that her complaint lacked credibility since she had made allegations against 14 people. The court termed this argument unnecessary. It also clarified that the trauma experienced by a woman who has been sexually assaulted does not reflect her character but the suffering she endured. Any attempt to portray a woman as immoral might be an effort to silence her, but this is against the law. The court is concerned with the seriousness of the complaint, not the character of the complainant, it said.
Therefore, the only considerations for the court are whether Siddique is prima facie guilty of the alleged offence and whether he is entitled to anticipatory bail. The court further highlighted that, as per Supreme Court guidelines, the nature of the complaint and the involvement of the accused must be thoroughly examined before granting anticipatory bail.
The court then systematically rejected each of the arguments raised by Siddique’s lawyer. Citing various Supreme Court rulings, the court noted that just because there was a delay in filing the complaint, it cannot be dismissed as lacking merit. Survivors of sexual assault may take time to recover from the trauma before coming forward. Concerns about losing dignity or fear may delay the filing of complaints. The circumstances behind the delay can be examined by the trial court.
The court also dismissed Siddique’s argument that the complaint lacked merit because it did not include allegations of penetration with his genital organ. According to Section 375 of the IPC, sexual assault does not only involve penetration with genital organs—any non-consensual act falls under the definition of rape. Therefore, the argument that there was no penile penetration does not hold.