Karnataka High Court rejects bail plea of Prajwal Revanna in rape case

mangaloretoday

Bengaluru, October 21, 2024: The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed the bail and anticipatory pleas of suspended Janta Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna who has been arrested on the allegations of rape and sexual assault.

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

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

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

Appearing for Revanna, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi had said, "The prosecutrix had grievances earlier, she had gone to the police complaining of removing her illegally from her house. Milords may note this, she is related to my mother, she was employed by my father, for four years she is working with us. There is no allegation at this stage against me. Allegations is against my father of sexual harassment".

Arguing on the absence of any explanation given by the prosecutrix for four year delay in lodging complaint, Navadgi said, "There is no explanation why she took four long years to lodge the complaint, she only says some videos were circulated, ’my husband asked are you in it, I took the courage and went to television channel, one day before polling is to take place and then lodged FIR’. Sec 376 (IPC) is invoked based on her (complainants) further statement. She narrates the same thing but makes changes to her version".

The senior counsel further had argued that the woman did not mention whether the alleged act was recorded on video or not, adding that there was "nothing on record to show there was an act". He further submitted that the FSL reports that were received did not match with the purported video.

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

He further had said that there was "some inconsistency" in the statement of the victim’s daughter as well.

"Five features of these statements are, right from incident (2020) upto 2024, May 1, no allegation of Sec 376. One explanation is that they were powerful people, that may not be believable. If the grievance was ’ I have to raise my voice’, she went before the television channel...first thing she could have said about is Sec 376 (IPC) which is not said. She says my husband kept on asking me whether the person in the video was me. Was it a case that she was found in the video and it was not with her consent? No explanation for several years, inconsistency in explanation of the events and there is shared animosity between them," Navadgi had added.

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

Regarding the FSL report, Navadgi said that the same was negative. He had said that the phone in question was seized on April 30, sent to FSL on May 30 and so a possibility of manipulation existed.

On the allegations under Section 66E of Information Technology (IT) Act, Navadgi had said that the same was not against Revanna as the phone was seized from Karthik.

With respect to the aspect of delay in lodging complaint Navadgi referred to a Supreme Court judgments and said, "Normal rule of delay being fatal may not be applicable in every case, notwithstanding the consequence which would befall on the accused, there should be some satisfactory explanation is required. My submission is forget about satisfactory explanation, there is no explanation at all".

Navadgi further pointed to two "factors" for the court’s consideration–that Revanna had been in custody since his arrest and that the chargesheet had been filed now.

"We are grounded in the society, we are a family and not likely to flee away from justice. Any condition imposed will be abided by scrupulously. The backlash me and the entire family has received should be considered," the senior counsel said.