Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Suspended Janta Dal (S) Leader Prajwal Revanna In Rape and Sexual Assault Case

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the bail and anticipatory pleas of suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved the order in the bail pleas, after hearing the parties.

On September 19, had reserved its order on the bail application (first case) filed by suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault. On September 26, the court had reserved its order on the two anticipatory bail applications filed by Revanna. 

Revanna had earlier argued that at this stage no allegations were made out against him, adding that there was a delay in lodging complaints in the matter.

Appearing for Revanna, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi had said, "The prosecutrix had grievances earlier, she had gone to the police complaining of removing her illegally from her house. Milords may note this, she is related to my mother, she was employed by my father, for four years she is working with us. There is no allegation at this stage against me. Allegations is against my father of sexual harassment". 

Arguing on the absence of any explanation given by the prosecutrix for four year delay in lodging complaint, Navadgi said, "There is no explanation why she took four long years to lodge the complaint, she only says some videos were circulated, 'my husband asked are you in it, I took the courage and went to television channel, one day before polling is to take place and then lodged FIR'. Sec 376 (IPC) is invoked based on her (complainants) further statement. She narrates the same thing but makes changes to her version".

The senior counsel further had argued that the woman did not mention whether the alleged act was recorded on video or not, adding that there was "nothing on record to show there was an act". He further submitted that the FSL reports that were received did not match with the purported video.

"Whether this lady and accused can be traced to the video is also negative.Why when she went to the television channel, she did not mention about Sec 376? and recording in her first statement also, the mention about Sec 376 (IPC) is conspicuously absent. In the further statement (of complainant) she says I did not disclose all details of harassment," Navadgi had argued.

He further had said that there was "some inconsistency" in the statement of the victim's daughter as well.

"Five features of these statements are, right from incident (2020) upto 2024, May 1, no allegation of Sec 376. One explanation is that they were powerful people, that may not be believable. If the grievance was ' I have to raise my voice', she went before the television channel...first thing she could have said about is Sec 376 (IPC) which is not said. She says my husband kept on asking me whether the person in the video was me. Was it a case that she was found in the video and it was not with her consent? No explanation for several years, inconsistency in explanation of the events and there is shared animosity between them," Navadgi had added.

Navadgi further had argued that no video was found from Revanna's phone. He said that Revanna's driver (Karthik) was also summoned whose phone was seized wherein the investigating agencies found "some photos and videos" wherein the explanation given was that the phone belonged to me Revanna.

Regarding the FSL report, Navadgi said that the same was negative. He had said that the phone in question was seized on April 30, sent to FSL on May 30 and so a possibility of manipulation existed.

On the allegations under Section 66E of Information Technology (IT) Act, Navadgi had said that the same was not against Revanna as the phone was seized from Karthik.

With respect to the aspect of delay in lodging complaint Navadgi referred to a Supreme Court judgments and said, "Normal rule of delay being fatal may not be applicable in every case, notwithstanding the consequence which would befall on the accused, there should be some satisfactory explanation is required. My submission is forget about satisfactory explanation, there is no explanation at all".

Navadgi further pointed to two "factors" for the court's consideration–that Revanna had been in custody since his arrest and that the chargesheet had been filed now.

"We are grounded in the society, we are a family and not likely to flee away from justice. Any condition imposed will be abided by scrupulously. The backlash me and the entire family has received should be considered," the senior counsel said.

He further submitted that on April 16 there was a "Lok Sabha rally and the victim accompanied me in the rally. Relies on Instagram account of petitioner

Navadgi further referred to the third complaint regarding "circulation of video" where Revanna has been made an accused; the high court has granted stay in another petition filed by Preetam Gowda.

Regarding this petition the high court orally had said, "Why is this not listed? This man by circulation has put every woman into ignominy...".

Meanwhile, appearing for the State, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar had argued that the allegations against Revanna starts after the allegations against Revanna's father were made.

On the question of delay in lodging of complaint raised by Revanna, Kumar submitted that the applicant was "constantly threatening the victim" adding that the details of the threat are given in the "further statement of the victim".

"She has narrated about what happened to her daughter at the hands of the petitioner. This aspect has been proved by the FSL report," Kumar argued.

At this stage the high court orally asked, "But FSL report is negative?". To this Kumar said that with regard to the daughter, the FSL report is "proved".

Kumar said that the delay had been "fully explained" which was on account of threat of the petitioner and that there was "no hide and seek".

"So far as the identity of the victim is concerned, it was in the darkness (that) the photo was shot, but the genuinity of the video is proved. For enlargement on bail, the court has to consider the efforts taken by petitioner to silence the victim, this man had himself ran away from the country. Third and important...is that the petitioner has not surrendered his phone which contains all information. Out of shame the lady has covered her face with the hand, that is why her identity could not be ascertained. He is not entitled for bail. Trial court has exhaustively considered all the arguments and accordingly answered while rejecting his bail application," Kumar said.

With respect to the anticipatory bail pleas it had been argued by the prosecution  that the FSL report on the video– in which Revanna has been allegedly "caught"– states that it is not morphed but genuine. Urging the court to deny bail, the prosecution had submitted that Revanna's "speech" was fully recorded and was found to be "similar" to the voice samples taken for comparison.

Revanna is charged for various offences including IPC Sections 376(2)n (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman, 376(2)k (rape while being in a position of control or dominance over a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354(a) (Sexual harassment), 354b (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 354c (Voyeurism) and Section 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy) of Information Technology Act.

Meanwhile Navadgi appearing for Revanna had then argued that there was only one feature in this case, wherein "after the alleged incident" and "prior to lockdown" the complainant continued to stay where the alleged incident took place. This, he had submitted, were "unusual circumstances", adding that rest of the arguments are same as made in the other bail pleas moved by Revanna.

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and other petitions

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 6401/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445