Karnataka HC Relegates Prajwal Revanna To Sessions Court For Bail In Rape Case, Sets 10-Day Deadline For Disposal

Earlier today, Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi (for Prajwal Revanna) argued that successive bail pleas need not go to the Sessions Court. He cited Supreme Court judgments stating that the same High Court judge can hear it. He also argued that approaching the trial court was "not feasible" and likened successive bail to a review.

ASPP Jagadeesha (for State), on the other hand, referred to a High Court circular requiring successive bail pleas to go before the roster judge, not necessarily the same judge. He argued that the petitioner must be relegated to the trial court, as he said that even the first bail plea had been filed there.

In view of these arguments, the bench disposed of his plea and asked him to approach the Sessions Court.

This was the second time Revanna had approached the High Court seeking regular bail in the matter. His first bail plea was dismissed by the High Court in October last year after it took note of the “serious charges” levelled against him and the “possibilities of witness tampering”.

This time, Revanna had sought bail claiming “change of circumstances” since the previous rejection.

Arguments made in previous hearing in the matter

During the hearing on June 24, Navadgi (for Revanna) submitted that there had been an “inordinate delay before the trial court” and urged the Court to grant bail without going into the merits of the previous denial.

He had further contended that the complainant had lodged the case four years after the alleged incident and had invoked Section 376 IPC only at the stage of recording her statement.

Thus, it was submitted that while the trial could proceed as it was, Revanna needed to be enlarged on bail due to the inordinate delay.

However, the State, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar, strongly opposed the plea.

On June 27, he raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that Revanna had not first approached the sessions court.

Kumar told the Court, “If there is a changed circumstance, successive bail application is maintainable before sessions court; otherwise, this court should relegate them to the sessions court”.

He added that “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”.

He further assailed Revanna's conduct, stating that “he was absconding” and had fled to Germany on April 26, 2024, “anticipating the lodging of the complaints”.

Kumar 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.”

Responding to the State's allegations, Revanna's counsel had earlier refuted the claims of “forum hunting” and informed the Court that “the Supreme Court judgment had said that the change of special bench must hear the successive bail matter”.