In a significant ruling on October 21st, the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna, declined the bail and anticipatory bail applications of suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is embroiled in serious allegations of rape and sexual assault.
The decision followed a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution. Revanna, arrested earlier, was represented by Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, who challenged the validity of the allegations pointing to a considerable delay in the filing of the complaints and inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements.
Navadgi highlighted the absence of direct allegations against Revanna in the initial complaint, focusing instead on an alleged sexual harassment by Revanna’s father. He also questioned the four-year delay in lodging the complaint, suggesting it undermines the credibility of the charges. “There are discrepancies in what was initially reported and what was later added, particularly concerning the alleged video evidence which, according to FSL reports, does not link my client to the purported acts,” Navadgi argued.
On the flip side, Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar represented the state, pressing the court to consider the severity of the accusations and the alleged threats made by Revanna towards the victim. Kumar pointed out that fear and intimidation led to the delay in reporting the assault, which was detailed in subsequent statements by the complainant.
“The victim was under constant threat, which explains the delay in coming forward. Furthermore, the FSL report supports the victim’s account, showing corroboration between her statements and the technical evidence,” Kumar argued. He also noted that Revanna had at one point fled the country, suggesting a consciousness of guilt and a risk of absconding.
Justice Nagaprasanna, upon reviewing the arguments and evidence, including the FSL report which confirmed the authenticity of the video and matched Revanna’s voice samples to recordings, found substantial grounds to deny bail. Revanna faces severe charges under Sections 376(2)n, 376(2)k, 354(a), 354(b) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
