Today(26th Sept), The Karnataka High Court has reserved its decision on the anticipatory bail plea of suspended JD(S) leader Prajwal Revanna, who faces serious allegations of repeatedly raping a domestic servant. Justice M Nagaprasanna made the ruling after hearing arguments from both the defense and the prosecution.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BENGALURU: Today(26th Sept), The Karnataka High Court reserved its decision regarding the anticipatory bail plea filed by suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader, Prajwal Revanna. Revanna faces serious criminal charges, including allegations of repeatedly raping a domestic servant employed by his family at their estate.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, reserved the judgment after hearing arguments from both sides. Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi represented Prajwal Revanna, while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Professor Ravivarma Kumar appeared on behalf of the state.
The case against Prajwal Revanna stems from a series of allegations involving sexual abuse. More than 2,900 videos have surfaced online, depicting the sexual assault of multiple women, with some of these videos being circulated across social media platforms. Among the victims, a domestic servant who worked at the Revanna family’s estate has accused Prajwal of repeatedly raping her. Following the alleged sexual assaults, the woman was reportedly kidnapped and confined to prevent her from filing a formal complaint against the JD(S) leader.
In connection with these allegations, a total of four cases have been lodged against Prajwal Revanna. The charges were brought forth by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), which has been investigating the matter. Additionally, Prajwal’s parents, including his father, JD(S) leader HD Revanna, are also facing charges related to the abduction of the rape survivor.
Both of Prajwal Revanna’s parents have been granted bail in the case. His father, HD Revanna, who is also a prominent political figure, has been implicated in the sexual assault charges, while his mother has been accused of involvement in the abduction of the domestic servant.
Despite his parents being released on bail, Prajwal Revanna remains in judicial custody. The court has yet to rule on his anticipatory bail plea, a critical legal development in the ongoing investigation.
ALSO READ: [Sexual Assault Case] Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Prajwal Revanna
During the court proceedings, Justice Nagaprasanna made a brief yet significant observation about the nature of the allegations against Prajwal Revanna, describing them as “too gory.”
SPP Professor Ravivarma Kumar argued against granting anticipatory bail to Revanna, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. He urged the court to consider the weight of the accusations and Revanna’s potential as a flight risk due to the extensive political and financial influence wielded by the Revanna family. Kumar also stressed the family’s alleged use of power to silence victims.
Highlighting the gravity of the case, SPP Kumar remarked-
“If there is anything that could be described as nymphomania, this case surpasses it.”
He further added-
“What makes this situation even more troubling is that the victim was not only under Revanna’s control but was also at least twice his age. A woman in such a position, who showed him respect, is a point I prefer not to elaborate on.”
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, defending Prajwal Revanna, countered the prosecution’s claims by urging the court to focus on factual considerations. He asserted that the case involves intricate factual allegations, which should be thoroughly evaluated during the trial rather than in the anticipatory bail phase.
Navadgi assured the court that Prajwal Revanna would comply with any bail conditions imposed and would cooperate with the investigation. He also pointed out an inconsistency in the complainant’s statements, noting that although the victim claimed the alleged sexual assault took place before the COVID-19 lockdown, she continued to live with the Revanna family even after the incident.
“The victim stated that this occurred before the lockdown, yet she continued to reside there.”
– Navadgi stated.
The court, however, appeared unconvinced by this argument and raised a critical question:
“Did she have any choice?”
suggesting the possibility that the victim may not have been in a position to leave the estate.
Navadgi responded to the court’s reservations by clarifying that this issue should be addressed during the trial, stating-
“These are questions for the trial. I was careful in my earlier statement, indicating that I do not wish to speculate on whether Section 376 (rape) occurred. However, simply making those statements in the complaint at this stage should not be interpreted as establishing a case for Section 376.”
Following the extensive arguments from both the prosecution and defense, Justice Nagaprasanna reserved the verdict on Prajwal Revanna’s anticipatory bail plea. In addition to this plea, Revanna has also filed other bail pleas, including a regular bail application.
