The Karnataka High Court on August 28 dismissed the Special Investigation Team's (SIT) petition to cancel the bail granted to JD(S) leader HD Revanna in a kidnapping case linked to sexual assault charges against his son, Hassan ex-MP Prajwal Revanna. Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the order on August 1 after hearing arguments from both sides. Revanna was initially granted bail by a special court on May 13.
In addition to upholding Revanna's bail, the High Court also granted bail to Satish Babanna, Revanna's aide, who took the victim on the pretext of meeting Revanna’s wife Bhavani. The detailed judgement is awaited.
On May 3, a complaint was registered in Mysuru where a 20-year-old man accused Revanna of kidnapping his mother, who was allegedly sexually assaulted by Prajwal. Satish Babanna, the second accused in the case, had told the victim that a police case had been registered against her and that she would be arrested. Fearing arrest, she said, she went with Babanna to a farmhouse in Kalenahalli village in Mysuru.
Revanna had filed for anticipatory bail before a Bengaluru court, but it was rejected on May 4. Following this, he was arrested the same day. The complainant’s mother was rescued on May 4, following which she recorded her statement with the SIT, alleging that she was raped by Prajwal Revanna.
Senior counsel Ravivarma Kumar, representing the SIT, argued that evidence had been gathered and a chargesheet filed, establishing the facts of the case. He contended that bail in such a serious case should be revoked, citing that the victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC were not adequately considered by the court in granting bail. He further emphasised that the court had overlooked the essential elements of Section 364-A of the IPC, which pertains to kidnapping with the intent to threaten life.
“The basic ingredient of section 364-A IPC is that the conduct of the accused gives rise to an apprehension that the life of the victim is in danger; the court has not noticed it,” Kumar submitted, according to Live Law.
Senior advocate CV Nagesh, representing HD Revanna, opposed the plea for bail cancellation, arguing that the criteria for granting and cancelling bail are distinct. He pointed out that the victim was not a minor, thus negating the charge of kidnapping under Section 364-A. "For abduction there has to be deceit under section 362 IPC. Here there is no happening of such an event; the lady was a maid servant, and thus there is no deceit. In this case, demand and threat is not established,” Nagesh had argued.
TNM has been continuously reporting on this case, speaking to survivors and others affected, to explore the profound societal impact of the sexual abuse videos. Our coverage can be accessed here.
