- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Bengaluru Court Denies Interim...
Bengaluru Court Denies Interim Anticipatory Bail To JDS Leader HD Revanna In Woman's Kidnapping Case
Mustafa Plumber
5 May 2024 8:45 AM IST
A special court on Saturday refused to grant anticipatory interim bail on arrest to Janta Dal (Secular) leader H D Revanna accused of kidnapping a woman.Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat rejected the application filed by Revanna seeking interim bail in a case registered against him under section 364 (A), 365, 34 of the Indian penal code. The court said,...
A special court on Saturday refused to grant anticipatory interim bail on arrest to Janta Dal (Secular) leader H D Revanna accused of kidnapping a woman.
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat rejected the application filed by Revanna seeking interim bail in a case registered against him under section 364 (A), 365, 34 of the Indian penal code.
The court said, “The complainant's mother who is also the victim is yet to be traced and at this juncture, it would not be appropriate to discuss invocation about Sec.364-A of IPC, since the court is only considering the interim bail application.”
As per the prosecution case, written information came to be filed before the K.R.Nagara Police Station on 2.5.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. in the night by the complainant stating that his mother was working in the house of accused No.1 for about six years and of late she had left the said job and was working as a daily wage labourer in their village.
It was stated that about 3 to 4 days prior to Parliament Elections, accused No.2 Satish Babanna who was known to them had come to their house and had requested his mother to accompany him and later on she returned back on the date of election to the parliament seat. It is also narrated that on 29.04.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. once again
It was stated that accused No.2 Satish Babanna had come to their house and had requested her to accompany him as directed by the accused No.1 H.D.Revanna.
It was stated that the complainant's friend had brought to his notice the viral video that was circulated pertaining to the sexual assault on his mother and when he had requested accused No.2 Satish Babanna to send his mother back, he had declined to do so and apprehending about her safety and well being, he had lodged a complaint on 2.5.2024.
The applicant argued that he was an innocent and law-abiding citizen and an attempt had been made to falsely implicate him. The complaint does not even remotely connect the petitioner to the allegations of trial and the reading of the complaint would clearly indicate that the same has been filed with an oblique motive by his political rivals to tarnish his reputation in the society, it was stated.
It was argued that the petitioner is a prominent leader in his constituency and set up a campaigning programme where his son was a candidate for the ensuing Lok Sabha Elections 2024 in order to hamper his prospects, false allegations were levelled against his son and now the petitioner is being roped in to settle the political scores.
The public prosecutor opposed the plea contending that the case which has been registered against the petitioner herein is not a false case, but the above case has nexus with the sexual assault and crime committed by his son Prajwal Revanna who had reportedly video recorded the obscene acts and had used for repeated sexual exploitation.
Further, it was stated that the case registered was an example that the petitioner and others will go to any extent and resort to any means to manipulate the legal system and tamper with the investigation.
The court noted that the victim of the said offence was kidnapped by accused No.2 under the directions of accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein and the Investigating Officers were yet to trace the victim and to record the statement of various witnesses in connection with the case.
The court said “The court has to look into the seriousness of the allegations leveled and also with all facts and circumstances of the case.Since the victim is yet to be traced, it would not be appropriate to admit the petitioner herein on interim anticipatory bail. However, at this juncture, it is made clear that the observations made supra are not with respect to the merits or demerits of the case.”
Accordingly, it rejected the application
Appearance: Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik for Advocate Pavan Sagar, for petitioner.
Special Public Prosecutor B.N.Jagadish for respondent.