Supreme Court Issues Notice On Karnataka SIT's Plea Challenging Anticipatory Bail Granted To Bhavani Revanna In Kidnapping Case

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, though initially expressed reservation about the Karnataka SIT's plea, ultimately agreed to issue notice to the accused.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Karnataka SIT, started by saying that the relief granted to Bhavani Revanna was "most unfortunate."

At this juncture, Justice Kant said, "Mr.Sibal, leave apart the political reasons. But see the reasons given by the High Court. Accused is a woman, aged 55 years. There are serious allegations against her son of indulging in atrocious things. He ran away and eventually, he was caught. In a case of these kind of allegations, what will be the role of the mother in abetting the crime committed by her son?"

Sibal said that there are statements indicating that the victim was actually kidnapped.

However, the bench continued probing the State, asking what was the evidence against her. Justice Bhuyan, at one point, observed that there was "nothing direct" against her. The bench also wondered whether the respondent, being a mother, would be involved in the sexual crimes allegedly committed by her son.

To persuade the bench, Sibal asserted that the statement of the victim recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC referred to the role of Bhavani in putting her under captivity.

"Victim was under captivity under the directions of the family. She(Bhavani) is the one who called, she is the one who directed the captivity. 164 Statement says so," Sibal submitted.

"We are only considering the question of liberty of a woman," Justice Kant said adding that the bench was only considering a limited point regarding the protection granted to her from arrest. If she is guilty, ultimately it will proved in the trial, the judge said.

Sibal submitted that the bench should not be under the impression that she was not involved in the crime merely because she was a woman.

"If your lordships are under the impression that the mother was not aware of this, I completely doubt. In the normal course of human conduct, the mother would be aware of all this. If your lordships think that she knew nothing how the victim was handled, it is another matter. But in the normal course of things, that is not possible," Sibal submitted.

Ultimately, the bench agreed to issue notice. After dictating the order, Justice Kant said, "There is nothing...let us not politicise the matter."

Background

The Karnataka HC last month granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, mother of Prajwal Revanna, who faces charges of kidnapping a woman.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit issued the order, emphasizing the importance of protecting women from unnecessary custody due to their central role in family life.

The HC acknowledged the State's allegation of non-cooperation by Bhavani Revanna but noted that she had answered all 85 questions posed to her by the police. The court stated that police cannot expect accused individuals to provide answers in a specific manner dictated by them. Bhavani Revanna has been restricted from entering Mysore and Hassan districts, except for investigation purposes.

The court also cautioned against media trials, highlighting the impact on public perception and the importance of not disturbing family life through media coverage.

The court had reserved its order on June 14 and continued the interim protection for Bhavani Revanna until the final decision.

According to the prosecution, Bhavani Revanna is the mastermind behind the abduction, aiming to protect her son Prajwal, who is accused of sexual assault. Prosecution argued that Bhavani Revanna's conduct was inappropriate given her political background and familial ties.

Earlier, the police had arrested HD Revanna(Prajwal's father) in connection with the case, but he was later released on bail. The prosecution has challenged this order and sought its cancellation.

The prosecution alleges that the complainant's mother, who had worked for Revanna for six years, was kidnapped by Satish Babanna on Revanna's instructions. The complainant claimed that a viral video allegedly showing the sexual assault on his mother was brought to his attention, and when he asked Babanna to return his mother, Babanna refused.

In granting anticipatory bail, the Karnataka HC highlighted the emotional and familial role of women, stressing the need for caution in seeking their custodial interrogation. The court noted the preferential treatment women should receive in bail matters.

The court rejected the prosecution's argument that Bhavani Revanna had a duty to prevent her son from committing offences, stating that the responsibility of a mother to control adult children is not a legal requirement. The court found no evidence linking Bhavani Revanna to the alleged sexual abuses by her son.

The court dismissed the contention that Bhavani Revanna was the main orchestrator of the abduction and that Section 364A of the IPC was applicable at this stage. It also noted that the complainant did not implicate Bhavani Revanna in the FIR but rather named two other individuals.

The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the need to scrutinize police claims for custodial interrogation. It rejected the notion that the courts must accept police requests for custodial interrogation without examination.

The court rejected the prosecution's argument that her political background could lead to evidence tampering, noting that her family ties and societal roots made her a suitable candidate for bail.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 8386/2024

Case Title – State of Karnataka v. Bhavani Revanna

Click Here To Read/Download Order