Bengaluru, Dec 3 (IANS) The Karnataka High Court has rejected the appeal petition filed by former MP Prajwal Revanna, grandson of former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, challenging his life imprisonment conviction in the sex CD and rape case and seeking immediate bail. The bench observed that granting relief to Prajwal could lead to the possibility of influencing witnesses.
The bench headed by Justice K.S. Mudagal and Justice T. Venkatesh Naik passed the order in this regard on Wednesday.
“After examining all the evidence, the seriousness of the offence, and how releasing the appellant on bail might affect other pending cases against him, the court has decided that this is not an appropriate case to grant bail or suspend the sentence,” the bench remarked while passing the order.
“The other related cases are still going on in court. Because of this, the Special Public Prosecutor’s argument is strong: if the court suspends the sentence and releases the accused, there is a real possibility that the accused might influence or interfere with the witnesses in those other cases,” the bench opined.
The court further noted that he should not be released on bail at this stage.
The court stated that the accused is facing multiple cases of sexual abuse. Referring to the first case registered at the Holenarasipura Rural police station of Hassan district, in which the court has rejected his appeal, the bench noted that Prajwal was not given bail during the trial of this case.
The bench stated that the police records submitted show that the victim had not mustered the courage to register a complaint with the police, fearing Prajwal’s background.
Earlier, questioning the life imprisonment awarded to former MP Prajwal Revanna in the alleged sex video and rape case, his counsel urged the court on Monday to suspend the trial court’s conviction.
He challenged the credibility of the evidence and pointed to the victim’s silence for several years. He also sought immediate bail for Prajwal Revanna.
Senior counsel Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Prajwal, argued that no case had been registered at the time Prajwal left the country. He questioned the prosecution’s claim that Prajwal failed to hand over his personal Apple handset, pointing out that no notice had been issued to him under Section 91 directing him to submit the device.
He added that the prosecution had also not attempted to obtain the phone’s details from the mobile company using the IMEI number.
Luthra further questioned why the victim had remained silent for three years and had not filed a complaint earlier.
“How did four cases suddenly get registered at once against Prajwal?” he asked, alleging that the complaints were motivated by political vendetta.
He also argued that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) evidence was unreliable.
“If the victim was raped in 2019 and 2021, why did she come forward only in 2023? And if she went to the farmhouse, why did she not take back her clothes?” he submitted, alleging that the police procedure for recovering the clothes was suspicious.
He also noted that the official who conducted the DNA test had died, raising doubts over the admissibility of the FSL report.
On the other hand, the prosecution opposed the bail request, arguing that if Revanna is released, he is likely to commit similar offences again and would also be a menace to society.
Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar, appearing for prosecution, submitted that the way the appellant committed the offence is a serious factor to consider. He said that if the appellant is released on bail, he may commit similar offences again and could pose a danger to society.
He also pointed out that the victim in this case is a key witness in the abduction case involving the appellant’s parents, and releasing the appellant could seriously affect that trial. The fact that the victim has been abducted twice earlier shows that the risk could become even worse if the appellant is granted bail.
Prajwal Revanna, who was arrested in May 2024 after returning from Germany, contested the court judgment on several grounds, including what he claims are contradictions in the survivor’s testimony and inconsistencies in the evidence produced by the prosecution.
A special court that convicted Revanna had sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life and imposed fines in one of the four sexual abuse and rape cases against him.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
