Today, On 2nd July, Prajwal Revanna’s lawyer told the Karnataka High Court that delay in one trial is affecting progress in related cases. “Delay in that trial has a cascading impact,” he argued while opposing further postponement of proceedings.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court continued hearing the interim bail plea of former Member of Parliament (MP) Prajwal Revanna, who is facing multiple rape and sexual assault cases.
Matter is being heard by a bench of Hon’ble Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
The matter was taken up before a bench where Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar resumed arguments on behalf of the prosecution.
At the start of his submission, the prosecutor told the court,
“My third preliminary objection is that the accused’s conduct is such that it disqualifies him from being considered for bail. With your permission, I will demonstrate this using the list of dates.”
Read Also: Denied Bail To Ex MP Prajwal Revanna In Rape Cases: Supreme Court
He then gave a timeline of the events leading up to and following the filing of the criminal complaints. He stated that Revanna had previously secured an injunction against media outlets, restraining them from publishing content about him.
He continued,
“After the petitioner obtained an injunction against publishing content about him, I cited SC directions. Elections were declared on April 21. On April 22, the victim in Crime No. 2 was abducted following the video leak. The petitioner’s election agent filed an FIR about the video going viral. The Karnataka State Women’s Commission then pushed for an SIT. The victim was released on April 26 the same day the petitioner fled the country.”
According to the counsel,
“On April 28, soon after the case came to light, the SIT was formed. The victim, who had earlier been abducted, was abducted again. I’m highlighting how the investigation was hindered due to the accused’s absence.”
The High Court asked,
“How is this relevant to the argument on trial delay?”
The prosecutor responded, “I’m demonstrating the accused’s conduct. On May 1, yet another complaint was filed against him.”
He further added,
“On 2-05, about abduction a complaint came to be filed and the victim was then released from illegal custody on 05-05, 2024. The trial in this case has begun and substantially completed. 313 statement is being recorded.”
The bench then inquired,
“Are all the victims in these cases different?”
The prosecutor replied,
“Yes, there are four different victims.”
On behalf of Prajwal Revanna, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi presented the defence side.
He clarified,
“There are only three cases under Section 376, involving three victims.”
The prosecution counsel also submitted, “There are a total of five cases, four against the petitioner and one against his parents.”
Advocate Navadgi expressed concerns over procedural delays, stating,
“We had requested yesterday for all case records, but the learned Magistrate rejected our application. Under Section 206 CrPC, an accused is entitled to receive all documents relied upon by the prosecution before the case is committed to trial.”
The prosecutor reiterated,
“There are five cases four against the petitioner and one against his parents. One case has already been committed to the Sessions Court. The delay is due to the accused, who has repeatedly stalled proceedings.”
Navadgi repeated his concern,
“We requested the full case records yesterday, but the Magistrate denied it. Under Section 206 CrPC, the accused must be given all documents relied upon by the prosecution before committal.”
The prosecutor then told the court that,
“The delay in that trial has a cascading impact, as it has stalled progress in the other cases too, the court has ordered that all matters be heard on everyday basis. He cannot get undue advantage for his own conduct.”
He added another serious claim,
“Now the advocate withdrew from the case, leaving the court with no choice but to adjourn so a new lawyer could be appointed. But Revanna’s side didn’t appoint anyone. And now, the same lawyer who had stepped away just as the trial was about to begin has returned to represent him again!”
To this, the Court asked, “How is this relevant? If he files another similar application after this court’s order, how does that matter?”
The prosecutor responded,
“His repeated attempts to seek the same documents reflect his conduct.”
The bench questioned further,
“But he is legally entitled to file such applications. If the case continues for over six months and he files applications under different provisions, can I then, in an order passed after six months, attribute it to his conduct?”
Read Also: No Bail for JD (S) MP Prajwal Revanna in Sex Tapes Case
The prosecutor again raised the issue of deliberate delay and strategy, saying,
“Now the advocate withdrew from the case, leaving the court with no choice but to adjourn so a new lawyer could be appointed. But Revanna’s side didn’t appoint anyone. And now, the same lawyer who had stepped away just as the trial was about to begin has returned to represent him again!”
He also argued that Revanna was not an ordinary citizen at the time of the alleged crimes.
He said,
“Another important factor to consider is that the petitioner, Prajwal Revanna, is not an ordinary citizen, he was a sitting Member of Parliament at the time of the alleged offences. He also threatened the victim. This case involves two victims: the mother, who was physically assaulted, and her daughter, who was at home when attempts were made to outrage her modesty by taking undue advantage of the situation.”
The prosecutor concluded with a firm statement,
“All the aspects with they are saying including number of witnesses are all pre existing facts. It was not even argued and today they cannot because they were all pre existing circumstances.”
He ended his submission by declaring,
“Man who held the threat is not entitled to bail.”
The matter is scheduled to continue at 4:30 PM. The Karnataka High Court will resume its consideration of the interim bail plea, with final arguments likely to follow.
Prajwal Revanna is the primary accused in four cases filed after the online circulation of over 2,900 clips depicting the sexual assault of numerous women, including on social media platforms.
Case Title: SRI. PRAJWAL REVANNA Vs STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION, CRL.P 3292/2025 (SPECIAL COURT MATTER)
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
