Karnataka High Court hears former MP Prajwal Revanna’s fresh bail plea in a rape case. Court focuses on whether the plea is maintainable as per Supreme Court rulings and registry norms.
Bengaluru: Today, on July 9, the Karnataka High Court recently heard a fresh bail petition filed by former Member of Parliament (MP) Prajwal Revanna, who is facing serious charges in a rape case.
The matter came up before Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, under Criminal Petition No. 3292 of 2025, filed against the State by Holenarasipura Police Station.
At the outset, Justice Krishna Kumar made it clear that he would only consider whether the petition itself was maintainable, stating:
“I will decide the matter based on the maintainability of the petition.”
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi appeared on behalf of Prajwal Revanna and began presenting his arguments. He stated that if the Court felt that the bail plea should be filed before the Sessions Court instead, the petitioner had no objection and would comply with the same.
However, he clarified that the current plea was not being heard on its merits. He submitted:
“If Your Lordship prefers that we approach the Sessions Court for bail, we are willing to do so. In any case, the matter is not being considered on its merits here.”
Navadgi also referred to past rulings of the Supreme Court to support his case. He pointed out that the apex court had consistently held that a second or successive bail application should be placed before the same High Court judge who had heard the earlier plea.
He emphasized that there was no Supreme Court ruling that mandated such applications to be first presented before the Sessions Court.
He argued:
“The Supreme Court has consistently held that a second successive bail application should be placed before the same High Court judge who heard the earlier one let alone suggesting that such a plea must be filed before the Sessions Court. No judgment supports that requirement.”
Another counsel representing the petitioner informed the Court that following a relevant Supreme Court order, the Karnataka High Court Registry had issued a circular.
Read Also: No Bail for JD (S) MP Prajwal Revanna in Sex Tapes Case
This circular clarified that successive bail applications should be listed before the roster judge, not necessarily the same judge who had earlier dismissed the plea.
He stated:
“Following the Supreme Court’s order, the High Court registry issued a circular stating that any subsequent bail petition should be placed before the roster judge, not necessarily the judge who heard the earlier bail plea.”
He further argued that treating the plea as a review was incorrect and going back to the trial court at this stage was not appropriate.
He submitted:
“This is akin to a review; going back to the trial court doesn’t arise. My submission is that Your Lordships should hear it no objection from our side.”
Another counsel also informed the Court that this very issue had come up in earlier hearings, and submissions had already been made.
He said:
“This issue has been raised earlier as well, and we’ve already made our submissions.”
Taking into account the submissions, the Court recorded in its order that the preliminary issue involved deciding whether this Bench could entertain the successive bail application, especially when the earlier one had been rejected by a coordinate Bench.
The Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) had cited a Supreme Court order stating that such petitions did not necessarily need to be heard by the same judge.
The Court directed the senior counsel to file a memo confirming that this Bench could hear the matter in line with the Supreme Court order and the High Court Registry’s circular.
The order noted:
“A preliminary issue arose on whether this bench can hear the successive bail plea, as the earlier one was rejected by a coordinate bench. The SPP cited an SC order stating such pleas need not go before the same judge. Senior Counsel will file a memo confirming this bench can hear the matter per the SC order and registry circular.”
Before concluding, one of the counsels also made a request for a speedy trial, saying:
“The only request is for expeditious disposal of trial Your Lordship.”
In response, the Special Public Prosecutor argued that since the petitioner had already gone to the trial court once and then to the High Court, he should now be sent back to the trial court.
Read Also: Denied Bail To Ex MP Prajwal Revanna In Rape Cases: Supreme Court
However, the petitioner’s counsel strongly disagreed and cited several Supreme Court judgments to assert that the High Court was well within its authority to hear a successive bail plea.
Case title:
SRI. PRAJWAL REVANNA V STATE BY HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION CRL.P 3292/2025
Read live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Prajwal Revanna
