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 rejected the bail and anticipatory pleas of suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna, who has been arrested on charges of rape and sexual assault.

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

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

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

Senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi appeared for Revanna and said, “The complainant had previous complaints, she had gone to the police and complained that they had illegally removed her from her home. Milords may notice this, she is related to my mother, she was employed by my father, she has been with us for four years. There are no allegations against me at this stage. The allegations are against my father of sexual harassment.”

Navadgi argued for the lack of any explanation by the prosecution for the four-year delay in filing a complaint: “There is no explanation why it took her four years to file the complaint, she just says that some videos were distributed, ‘my husband asked if you were in it, I took courage and went to the television channel, a day before the elections would take place and then FIR filed’. Sec 376 (IPC) is invoked on the basis of her further statement (complainants). She tells the same thing, but makes changes to her version“.

The senior counsel had further submitted that the woman did not mention whether the alleged act was video recorded or not, adding that there was “nothing in the documents to show that there was any act”. He further argued that the FSL reports received did not match the alleged video.

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

He had further said that there was also “some inconsistency” in the statement of the victim’s daughter.

“Five features of these statements are: No Sec 376 accusation from the incident (2020) through May 1, 2024. One explanation is that they were powerful people, who may not be credible. If the complaint was, ‘I have to raise my voice’, she went to the television channel… The first thing she could have said is Sec 376 (IPC), which is not said. She says my husband kept asking me if I was the person in the video. Was it true that she was found in the video and it wasn’t with her consent? There has been no explanation for years, inconsistency in the explanation of events and shared animosity between themNavadgi had added.

Navadgi had further argued that no video was found on Revanna’s phone. He said that Revanna’s driver (Karthik) was also summoned whose phone was seized in which the investigating agencies found “some photos and videos” in which the explanation given was that the phone belonged to me, Revanna.

Regarding the FSL report, Navadgi said the same was negative. He had said that the phone in question had been seized on April 30 and sent to FSL on May 30 and therefore there had been tampering.

About the charges under Section 66E of the Information Technology (IT) Act, Navadgi had said the same was not against Revanna as Karthik’s phone had been seized.

On the aspect of delay in filing a complaint, Navadgi referred to judgments of the Supreme Court and said, “The normal rule that delay is fatal may not apply in all cases, despite the consequences that would apply to the accused , there should be a satisfactory solution.” No explanation is needed. My submission is: Forget a satisfactory explanation, there is no explanation at all.”

Navadgi further pointed out two ‘factors’ for the court’s consideration: that Revanna had been in custody since his arrest and that the charges had now been filed.

“We are rooted in society, we are a family and we are not likely to run from justice. Any condition imposed will be scrupulously observed. The response I and the entire family have received must be taken into accountthe senior counsel said.

He further submitted that there was a ‘Lok Sabha meeting on April 16 and the victim accompanied me during the meeting. Relies on petitioner’s Instagram account

Navadgi further referred to the third complaint regarding the “circulation of video” accusing Revanna; the Supreme Court has granted a stay in another petition filed by Preetam Gowda.

Regarding this petition, the Supreme Court had orally said: “Why isn’t this mentioned? This man has put every woman to shame by circulation..”.

Meanwhile, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar had argued for the state that the allegations against Revanna started after the allegations were leveled against Revanna’s father.

On the issue of delay in filing Revanna’s complaint, Kumar submitted that the applicant “continually threatened the victim”, adding that the details of the threat are given in the “further statement of the victim”.

“She narrated what happened to her daughter at the hands of the petitioner. This aspect has been proven by the FSL report‘, Kumar argued.

At this stage the Supreme Court verbally asked: “But the FSL report is negative?”. To this, Kumar said that regarding the daughter, the FSL report is “proven”.

Kumar said the delay was “fully explained”, due to the petitioner’s threat, and there was “no hide and seek”.

“As for the identity of the victim, the photo was taken in the dark, but the authenticity of the video has been proven. In extending bail, the court must take into account the petitioner’s efforts to silence the victim; this man himself had left the country. Third and important…is that the petitioner has not surrendered his phone, which contains all the information. Out of shame, the lady covered her face with her hand, so her identity could not be determined. He is not entitled to bail. The court fully considered all the arguments and replied accordingly while rejecting his bail applicationKumar said.

Regarding the anticipatory bail applications, the prosecutor had argued that the FSL report on the video – in which Revanna was allegedly ‘caught’ – states that it is not distorted but real. Urging the court to deny bail, the prosecutor had argued that Revanna’s “speech” was fully recorded and found to be “similar” to the voice samples taken for comparison.

Revanna is charged with several offenses including IPC sections 376(2)n (pleads repeatedly raping the same woman, 376(2)k (rape while in a position of control or dominance over a woman), 506 (criminal intimidation ), 354(a) (Sexual Harassment), 354b (Assault or use of criminal force against women with intent to undress), 354c (Voyeurism) and Section 66E (Punishment for Invasion of Privacy) of the Information Technology Act .

Meanwhile, Navadgi, appearing for Revanna, had then submitted that there was only one feature in this case where “after the alleged incident” and “before the lockdown” the complainant continued to stay where the alleged incident took place. These, he had argued, were “unusual circumstances”, adding that the rest of the arguments are the same as those in Revanna’s other bail applications.

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna v. State of Karnataka and Other Petitions

Case number: Criminal petition No. 6401/2024

Citation number: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 445