Today, On 3rd July, During the hearing on Prajwal Revanna’s bail plea, his lawyer told the Karnataka High Court, “Article 21 and personal liberty are at stake,” and sought time to file an affidavit. The Court adjourned the matter.
The Karnataka High Court heard the second bail application filed by suspended JD(S) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is implicated in a rape case.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar heard the matter.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) opposed the bail request yesterday, contending that Revanna’s behavior renders him unsuitable for bail.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, representing Prajwal Revanna, addressed the court’s inquiry regarding the direct filing of this second bail application with the High Court.
He stated,
“A plain reading of Section 439 shows that both the High Court and the trial court have concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail.”
Navadgi elaborated that Revanna initially approached the trial court before moving to the High Court, which had previously denied the plea and made specific observations at that time.
He argued that circumstances have changed, as there has been a significant delay in the proceedings with no indication that the trial will commence soon.
He remarked,
“The circumstances have changed since then there’s delay and no sign of the trial progressing. Returning to the sessions court would be difficult.”
He continued,
“I submit that if the petitioner is to be granted bail based on changed circumstances, the earlier High Court order will still be relevant and must be considered.”
Navadgi requested the court to continue the hearing the following day and assured that he would respond to all questions then.
He also pointed out,
“It would be nearly impossible to approach the sessions court now, as it’s unlikely to grant bail while disregarding the earlier reasons given by the High Court in its rejection order. A higher forum has already ruled on the matter.”
He emphasized,
“What I’m arguing today is that when my earlier bail plea was rejected, the current delay in trial is directly connected to that very order it’s not something that can be viewed in isolation.”
Clarifying his request, he stated,
“My request for bail now is essentially asking the Court to revisit that earlier rejection. I’m using the term reconsidered in a general sense, not as a formal legal term.”
Navadgi also invoked constitutional rights in his argument, saying,
“Article 21 and the issue of personal liberty are also at stake here. I request the Court to grant me time to file an additional affidavit. I can submit it by Monday. In my view, pleadings play a limited role in criminal jurisprudence, but I’ll still prepare a note and circulate a copy.”
After these submissions, the hearing was adjourned.
During the previous hearing, the Special Public Prosecutor alleged that Revanna’s actions including delaying proceedings, switching lawyers, and threatening victims make him unfit for bail.
The prosecutor said,
“Delay in that trial has a cascading impact.”
He also pointed out that Revanna, as a sitting MP at the time, abused his position.
The defence, led by Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, argued that under Section 206 CrPC, Revanna is entitled to case documents, and delays are procedural.
Suspended JD(S) leader and former MP Prajwal Revanna is facing multiple rape and sexual assault cases, following the leak of over 2,900 objectionable videos involving several women. After fleeing the country in April 2024, he returned and is currently in custody.
Case Title: SRI. PRAJWAL REVANNA Vs STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION, CRL.P 3292/2025 (SPECIAL COURT MATTER)