Kidnapping Case: Karnataka HC Reserves Verdict In Bhavani Revanna's Plea To Relax Travel Restriction Imposed In Anticipatory Bail Order

Opposing Bhavani Revanna's plea for relaxation of a travel restriction imposed while granting anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of kidnapping of a woman, the State told the Karnataka High Court on Monday (March 10) that she was "mastermind behind the abduction" to prevent complaint against her son Prajwal Revanna. 

Bhavani Revanna is the mother of Janata Dal (S) leader Prajwal Revanna, who is accused of committing sexual offences against several women.  She had moved the high court seeking relaxation of a condition imposed in the anticipatory bail order restraining her from entering her native districts of Mysuru and Hassan.

After hearing the parties for around 2 hours, Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur reserved his verdict in the matter. 

Appearing for the petitioner (A-8) senior advocate Sandesh J Chouta submitted, "The condition has been imposed in ABA (anticipatory bail) order dated 18-06-2024. At the time when ABA was granted, kindly see the offence alleged it included 364A IPC. This order was challenged in SC and it came to be dismissed".

Chouta said that there were five conditions granted in the anticipatory bail order. He thereafter said that chargesheet was filed and cognizance was taken August 17, 2024 wherein IPC Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom) charge was dropped which was not challenged. 

Kidnapping for ransom charge dropped, cases against Prajwal have nothing to do with Bhavani

Pointing to IPC Section 364A Chouta said that it is punishable with death or life imprisonment. He said that for rest of the offences for which cognizance, the punishment is less than 7 years. 

Chouta submitted that if petitioner is to leave the state she will have to take permission of the court. He said that the petitioner asked for temporary relief to visit a temple in Hassan which was allowed by the high court.  

Pointing to the conditions Chouta said, "There is no case of me breaching any of the conditions. Kindly notice para 2 of Statement of objections filed. It says 'petitioner has not approached with clean hands and (plea) be dismissed'. I have not suppressed anything. There are cases against my son (Prajwal) it has nothing to do with me. I am being confined to the house. A1 (HD Revanna) was also granted bail". 

The high court at this stage asked, "This was granted by the Special court", to which Chouta said yes. 

Chouta said that the condition which was imposed was to "surrender passport and not leave the state without taking permission from court". He said that Bhavani was restrained from "entering KR Nagar taluk, not a district".

Chouta thereafter said, "The offences for which cognizance has now been taken punishment is upto seven years. The grounds I seek relaxation (for) is that chargesheet has been filed. Section 364A is not taken cognizance of. Petitioner has not misuse of any liberty for nine months". 

Chouta said that all other accused are permitted to travel in the state except for A1 who is restricted to a particular taluk. He said that Bhavani has family roots including "deity in Holeinarsipura". He said that her antecedents cannot be doubted and this offence will be tried by Magistrate court.

To this the high court orally asked, "Why would this offence be tried by magistrate court?".

Chouta said that it will be special court (magistrate) not sessions court and he had not yet touched on the merits of the case. 

Bhavani Revanna is 'mastermind' behind abduction to prevent complaint against Prajwal

Meanwhile special public prosecutor (SPP) Prof Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the state submitted, "Petitioner's son one Mr Prajwal Revanna was MP representing Hassan Constituency. He happens to be grandson of Former Prime Minister. He approached in 2023 City Civil court and secured order of injunction preventing any kind of publication against him. Elections (Lok Sabha) scheduled on April 26, on April 21 pen drives were circulated in it offence of rape or attempt to rape were video graphed. The allegation was that MP himself had videographed it". 

Kumar said that after this, "at the instance of the petitioner the victim was abducted between 21-04 to 26-04, 2024. She comes from Mysore district which is home district of petitioner". 

He said that incidentally the petitioner's son fled from the country on April 26, 2024. He submitted that Prajwal was not an accused in the present case but he "repeatedly raped the victim and videographed" the alleged incident.

"On 26-04 (2024) first allegation against MP was made and FIR lodged on 27-04. On April 28, nature of offence committed demanded constitution of SIT. The very next day the victim was abducted again and the manner and method in which abduction took place she did not now she was being abducted," the SPP said. 

At this stage the court orally asked, "Abducted by whom?". 

To this Kumar said, "By one of her (Bhavani) relatives at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter she (victim) was produced before the petitioner by A-2. The petitioner confiscated mobile phone of the victim and issues necessary instructions to keep at her place where she will not be available for investigation. Once video become viral the victim's son realizes that his mother is abducted and he did not know that petitioner was responsible. A-2 used the name of A-1 (HD Revanna)...When video went viral the son of victim came to know that his mother was raped by the petitioner's son and she has been abducted. He does not know that petitioner is the mastermind, only A-1 (Revanna) name is used". 

Kumar said that SIT investigation is completed and till now the petitioner has not surrendered her phone. He said that accused no. 9  (A-9) is the petitioner's driver who is still at large. He said that after chargesheet was presented she had filed application for discharge which  is pending consideration.

Kumar said, "While that is pending, relief sought in this application. Investigation has revealed that petitioner was mastermind in abducting the victim to prevent filing of complainant against her son. Very interestingly she ensured that her son abscond from India, she also escaped from the clutches of law. Once this complaint was lodged, petitioner escaped and was not traceable until she secured an order at the hands of this court on June 7. Though her role as kingpin was clearly established. All accused in this case were arrested except her". 

Kumar thereafter referred to the June 7, 2024 order granting the petitioner anticipatory bail. He said that the condition imposed was to continue till prosecution is lodged. 

Survivor has said that Bhavani directed her abduction, details reflects in probe

On why the petitioner should not be permitted to enter Mysuru and Hassan districts, Kumar said, "Kindly look at the victim' statement. She is an illiterate lady and domestic help in the petitioner's house. After the repeated rape the victim leaves the house and goes back to her house. An illiterate lady coming and telling the court under section 164 (CrPC) says that it is the petition(er) who directed her being taken to a place". 

Kumar said that the victim had also given details about how she escaped and returned home. He said that all these things are fully reflected in the investigation.

"Petitioner abducted potential complainant who was raped by her son. Several victims have been raped by the petitioner's son. The very nature of the offence is abduction of a victim, so all the potential complainants have refrained from approaching the police. The foundation of granting bail is that she will not enter the two districts," Kumar argued.

He thereafter said that it is under such circumstances the conditions were imposed. "I request the court that out of 100's of victims only four have come forward and registered FIR against the petitioner's son. Because of the present case and condition imposed by HC no abduction could take place of other victims," he said.  

Kumar argued that though nature of offence is such that bail should not have been granted but court found it fit to impose the condition to prevent her from entering the districts.

Kumar thereafter said, "Court has permitted her to visit temple. If there is an occasion that arises to visit that district, she can surely make an application and seek relief for temporary period...In this present case her discharge application is pending and she cannot pursue parallel remedy". 

Petitioner will interfere if allowed to enter the district

On the court's query Kumar said that no other case is pending against the petitioner but there are other cases against her son (Prajwal). He thus argued that under such circumstances, the plea for relaxing bail condition should not be allowed. 

"All the other accused have obeyed the orders of the petitioner. A-1 it may not apply as his name was only used at the instance of petitioner. She is the mastermind milord. She knew that she is the most vulnerable victim subjected to repeated rape by her son," he said adding that trial had not begun in any of the cases. 

The court thereafter orally asked if this is why the State has an apprehension. 

To which Kumar said, "Yes. court anticipated keeping her antecedents...that she will interfere with other victims as well. Let her cooperate and allow the trials to commence and let the victims be examined. May be after that court may consider the relief. In the interest of the society milord. Here in this case not one victim but 100's". 

He said that the petitioner had "already indulged in such a conduct" and if she is allowed to enter the district, then "she will interfere with the victim".

Plea may not be allowed in the interest of women says State

Pointing to the interest of the community at large, the general public and the need to protect the interest of the women Kumar said, "We have celebrated women's day. Imagine a Member of parliament indulging in these acts". 

The court at this stage orally said, "Implementers are the legislators now". 

Kumar thus said that such conduct should be seen strictly; let the trial continue and petitioner be asked to cooperate.

On the court's query Chouta said that he was seeking "total relaxation of the condition".  He further countered the submission that Bhavani is the mastermind by arguing that the submission was contrary to details given in the chargesheet where the investigating officer had put the blame on "A-1, A2 and A3". 

Arguing on the aspect of "parity" Chouta said that the condition restraining A-1 and A-2 from entering the districts had not been imposed. 

Chouta thereafter said, "When I am standing on the same footing, relaxing the condition will bring me on par with other co-accused". He said that the aspect of cases against the son had been considered while granting anticipatory bail to Bhavani; now while seeking relaxation of the bail condition the pending cases against the son should not come in the way. 

Countering the contention against pursuance of parallel remedies, Chouta said that discharge application and relaxation of bail condition are two distinct reliefs. He further said that Article 21 of the Constitution protects her right to travel. 

At this stage the court orally asked the State, "Why did you not plead all this when bail was granted to others".

Kumar said that there was no threat from others as "they are obedient servants of the petitioner". Opposing the contention on parity Kumar said that she is the kingpin, mastermind behind abduction, and all others have obeyed her, hence question of parity does not arise.

After hearing the parties the high court reserved its verdict

Case title : SMT. BHAVANI REVANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P 5125/2024