Women Epicentres Of Family Life, Deserve Preferential Treatment In Bail Matters: Karnataka HC While Granting Anticipatory Bail To Prajwal Revanna's Mother
The Karnataka High Court while granting anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, mother of Prajwal Revanna, said “In our social structure, women are the epicentres of family life; their displacement, even for a short period, ordinarily disturbs the dependents. Additionally, they are emotionally attached to the family. Therefore, investigating agencies should be very cautious while seeking...
The Karnataka High Court while granting anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, mother of Prajwal Revanna, said “In our social structure, women are the epicentres of family life; their displacement, even for a short period, ordinarily disturbs the dependents. Additionally, they are emotionally attached to the family. Therefore, investigating agencies should be very cautious while seeking their custodial interrogation.”
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit granted anticipatory bail and said “Women by their very nature deserve preferential treatment inter alia in matters relating to bail, regular or anticipatory.”
Referring to United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), the court said: “The above rules of International Law partake the character of domestic law, there being nothing repugnant thereto in our System because of Article 51 of the Constitution as construed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions.”
The prosecution had sought custody of the accused Bhavani in a case registered under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, for abducting a woman, who is alleged to be a victim of sexual assault by Prajwal Revanna.
One of the arguments raised by the prosecution was that the petitioner (Bhavani) had not prevented her son (Prajwal) from sexually abusing several women & from fleeing the country and therefore, she should not be granted bail.
To which the court said, “Control of the patriarch of the family that obtained in Roman Law does not appear as a justiciable norm in our set up. Petitioner's son is facing criminal cases and after his return from abroad, he has been taken into custody by the police for investigation, is not in dispute. But, what duty a mother owes in law to prevent her major children from committing offences, has not been shown by turning the pages of the statute book or by citing rulings.”
It added that history & epics bear testimony to the fact that children of noble parents may commit delinquencies.
Nothing is placed on record to show that in the cases of sexual abuse of women registered against her son, the petitioner happened to be an abettor. The said abuses allegedly happened in the property belonging to the petitioner, can only be a poor factor. The facts of those cases cannot be much read into the case registered against the petitioner while deciding her advance bail petition, the Court said.
It noted that in the FIR the complainant who happens to be the son of the abducted lady does not implicate the petitioner but requests the Respondent-Police to take action only against two specified persons namely, Satish Babanna & Revanna, later being the petitioner's husband.
Rejecting the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is the 'King Pin' of the entire episode and offences alleged against culprits are punishable with death or life imprisonment and therefore in such heinous offences no anticipatory bail can be granted as a matter of course.
The court said that the provisions of Section 364A of IPC do not appear to be invokable in the case at its present stage, although new facts that may arguably emerge during the progressive investigation may warrant its attraction. It added that there is not even a whisper that the argued risk to abductee's life is at the instance of the petitioner.
Even otherwise, no assumption of the kind can be made against the petitioner who is not named by the complainant or by his mother in her sections 161 & 164 statements that are furnished in a sealed cover, the Court said.
Further, it said “If the said provision is found to be prima facie not invokable, then the remaining offences alleged against the Accused, obviously do not attract the capital punishment, life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years also. Companion Sec.365 is also a species of the offence of abduction/kidnapping and it prescribes a maximum punishment of only seven years. Therefore, it cannot be gainfully argued that in matter like this, no bail, anticipatory or regular can ever be granted, as a Thumb Rule.”
It held that the contention that the case involves heinous offences that should abhor the request for bail, regular or anticipatory, does not merit acceptance.
The court also turned down the contention of the prosecution that police need the petitioner for custodial interrogation and this version of Police has to be accepted at face value, with no discretion availing to the court to examine its veracity.
It agreed with the petitioner's contention that the version of the Police as to the requirement of custodial investigation is liable to be examined by the court, personal liberty of individual being constitutionally sacrosanct.
Then it expressed that if the proposition of the Special Public Prosecutor that the courts under no circumstance can examine the tenability of the police claim for custodial interrogation is accepted, it would strike the death knell of sacrosanct guarantees of freedom & liberty gloriously enacted in the Constitution, they have been progressively construed by the courts.
In our evolved system, freedom has been broadened from precedent to precedent. Makers of the Constitution have founded a Welfare State for us in the light of lessons drawn from the experience during the Colonial Regime. Our Constitution does not enact Idi Amin Jurisprudence, nor does our Criminal Justice System, the Bench held.
Turning down the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner despite intimation refused to come for investigation and therefore she should not be granted advance bail, the Court said, “Petitioner submitted that there was every reason to believe that she would be arrested at once, if she appeared before police. This version is plausible since it is the specific and emphatic case of the Police that they require her for custodial interrogation and the court cannot say 'no' to it.”
Further, it said “Even now the petitioner is ready & willing to further participate in the ongoing investigation whenever & wherever the police want her. The number of appearances and duration of interrogation are not to be taken as restricted by this court since investigation pertains to the domain of the Investigating Agency and the Agency controls it.”
Finally, the court rejected the contention that the petitioner hails from a political background and could tamper with evidence if granted bail.
It said “All that cannot be a sole consideration for denying bail in a matter like this, especially when petitioner is a married woman having a settled family and roots in the society. There are umpteen decisions of Apex Court and of this Court wherein, bail/anticipatory bail has been accorded to women accused of even heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. They hardly need to be enlisted. Therefore, there is no Thumb Rule that arguably in serious matters like this, invocation of bail jurisdiction should never be permitted.”
Accordingly, it allowed the anticipatory bail application.