The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed suspended JD(S) leader Prajwal Revanna to approach the sessions court for bail in a high-profile rape and sexual assault case, reiterating that the appropriate legal course is to first seek relief from the trial court.
Justice S R Krishna Kumar, while hearing the bail plea, said it would be “more appropriate” for Revanna to exhaust remedies before the lower court. The bench also clarified that Revanna could return to the High Court if necessary, once the sessions court has considered his application.
This was Revanna’s second attempt to secure bail in the case. His earlier plea had been dismissed by the High Court in October 2023, and the Supreme Court also refused to grant him relief. In March 2024, he filed a fresh application, citing a change in circumstances, particularly the delay in the trial process.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, appearing for Revanna, argued that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the bail application directly. However, the bench held firm that the plea should first be decided by the sessions court. On Navadgi’s request, the High Court directed the trial court to adjudicate the bail plea within ten days of its filing.
Revanna faces serious charges in four separate FIRs involving allegations of rape, voyeurism, and distribution of obscene material. These cases surfaced after more than 2,900 video clips allegedly depicting sexual abuse were widely circulated online and through social media.
The first complaint was lodged in April 2023 by a domestic worker at Revanna’s family farmhouse, who accused him of repeated sexual assault since 2021 and claimed he threatened to leak video footage if she spoke out.
A Bengaluru trial court has already framed multiple charges against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including rape, criminal intimidation, voyeurism, and distribution of private images without consent.
Revanna’s legal team has argued that the delay in the trial violates his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. The state, represented by Special Public Prosecutors Prof Ravi Varma Kumar and B N Jagadeesha, opposed the bail plea, contending that the delays were due to tactics employed by the accused and his family.
The High Court made it clear that all legal contentions remain open and can be raised at the appropriate forum. The sessions court has now been tasked with deciding the bail application expeditiously.
