Former Minister and Janata Dal (Secular) leader H.D. Revanna faced detention by a Special Investigation Team under allegations of involvement in a woman’s abduction. It’s claimed that individuals associated with him abducted a woman who had allegedly suffered sexual abuse involving his son, Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna.
Court’s Proceedings
The court stated that it would not be appropriate to discuss the invocation of Section 364-A of the IPC at this point, as the victim’s mother, who is also the complainant, has not been located. The court clarified that it was currently only considering the interim bail application.
According to the prosecution, the complaint was submitted on May 2, 2024, at around 9:00 p.m. at the K.R. Nagara Police Station. The complainant stated that his mother, who had worked at accused No. 1’s house for roughly six years, had lately quit and started working as a daily wage laborer in their village. Approximately 3 to 4 days before the legislative elections, accused No. 2 Satish Babanna went to their house and asked the complainant’s mother to accompany him. She returned on Election Day. Satish Babanna returned on April 29, 2024, about 9:00 p.m., and urged her to follow him, reportedly at the direction of accused No. 1, H.D. Revanna.
The complainant learned about a viral video showing his mother’s alleged sexual assault. When he asked Satish Babanna to return his mother, Satish Babanna refused. Concerned for her safety, the complainant filed a complaint on May 2, 2024.
While the applicant held that he is a law-abiding citizen and all these allegations are being leveled against him to malign his and his son’s image in the upcoming elections, The public prosecutor held that the complaint filed against the petitioner is not fake; rather, it is related to the sexual assault and crimes allegedly perpetrated by his son, Prajwal Revanna. It is claimed that Prajwal Revanna recorded the obscene acts and sexual assaults he conducted, which he used to continuously exploit the victim.
Court’s Ruling
The court observed that the victim of the alleged offense was abducted by accused No. 2 upon the instructions of accused No. 1, the petitioner in this case. Furthermore, the investigating officers had not yet located the victim or recorded statements from various witnesses related to the incident.
The court emphasized that it must consider the gravity of the accusations along with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Given that the victim has not been found, granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner would not be appropriate at this stage.
