He Can't 'Directly Approach' Karnataka High Court: State Opposes Prajwal Revanna's Second Bail Plea In Alleged Rape Case

Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for the State submitted before Justice S R Krishna Kumar,“First ground is on the maintainability of the petition. The plea is filed before approaching the sessions judge. The petitioner cannot directly approach the High Court.”

The high court queried whether in first the bail application Revanna approached the sessions court and then came to the high court. It further asked if the same approach has to be followed in his second bail application.

"So the same ladder he has to climb. First round has to be before sessions court?," the court asked.

Kumar replied in the affirmative and referring to Supreme court and high court judgments on the said proposition and submitted, “If there is a changed circumstances successive bail application is maintainable before sessions court otherwise this court should relegate them to the session court.”

He added “There is not even a whisper in the petition, that the petitioner approached the sessions court or why he is bypassing it. In such a situation the petition has to be dismissed.”

Kumar then said, “The second and important objection to maintainability is the conduct of the petitioner himself. They say there is delay in completing the trial, he was absconding.”

He gave details of the lawsuit filed by Prajwal Revanna before registration of the crime, seeking direction to not publish anything adverse against him and wherein ex-parte temporary injunction order was issued by the civil court against the media and one Karthik.

Kumar said, “It is important to take note that the allegation of political vendetta now made was not mentioned in the suit. In the suit the allegation is that video is morphed video and he got a temporary injunction and the suit is pending.”

The court questioned about link between the filing of the suit and the temporary injunction issued by the civil court to the bail petition. Kumar emphasised that “They knew of the video, he had knowledge of it in May 2023. It shows his conduct.”

Kumar said that Revanna had fled on April 26, 2024 to evade arrest, and raised a ground about Revanna being a flight risk.

“Anticipating the lodging of the complaints, and he could be arrested, on 26-04, 2024 he fled to Germany. Investigation has revealed that he bought the ticket the same day," he added.

Kumar opposed the argument on delay in trial raised by Revanna and contended, “There is absolutely no delay. Of the four cases against the petitioner we have commenced two cases against the petitioner.”

At this stage the high court orally said, “The only reason this case did not run the same speed as two other cases is because of the stay order passed in the petition filed by A-1 (HD Revanna).” Kumar then said, “Also because of the petitioner's conduct.”

Kumar also contended that the petitioner is also taking advantage of change of bench, i.e. forum hunting. Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi appearing for Revanna however refuted this contention and said, “The Supreme court judgement had said that the change of special bench must hear the successive bail matter.” He informed that before the hearing began he had apprised the court about this.

The court has now adjourned the hearing to July 2.

Case Title: Prajwal Revanna AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition 3292/2025