New Delhi: A lack of corroborating material to indicate his active role in the kidnapping of his maid, the delay in recording the victim’s statement and insufficient proof to establish that he shielded his son — the special court in Bengaluru cited these three grounds while granting bail to JD(S) leader H.D. Revanna two days ago.
The prominent Karnataka politician, son of former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, is accused of kidnapping a woman who accused his son, Prajwal Revanna, of sexually assaulting her. The woman worked as a help in Revanna’s house. The first information report (FIR) on the alleged kidnapping was registered on 2 May at the behest of the victim’s son.
The woman was rescued on 4 May, the day Revanna was arrested in the case. He was granted bail on 14 May.
Special Judge K. Gajanana Bhat said he would not make a “roving enquiry” with respect to the material aspects of the case while deciding the bail application. The disputed facts regarding Revanna’s involvement in the case, the judge said, would be established during the course of the trial. These facts cannot be a ground not to grant bail, specially in the absence of “prima facie material” establishing Revanna’s link to the crime, he added.
Revanna’s legal team has argued that Section 364(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes persons for kidnapping for ransom or wrongfully confining someone by threatening to hurt him/her, required the prosecution to produce credible evidence, which was missing in the present case.
The prosecution opposed Revanna’s bail on the ground that if set free, he would influence witnesses and even threaten the victim.
Rejecting the prosecution’s apprehension, Judge Bhat said, “The court is required to strike a balance between the right of a victim and also that of the accused.” He drew attention to the fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system that assures the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, from where flows the concept of bail.
With regard to the absence of material against Revanna, the court said: “It is noticed from the records that though the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of abducting the victim, no materials have been produced to indicate his active role at this juncture.” But he clarified his observations were only for the purpose of ascertaining the prima facie case and should not be taken as comments on the merits of the case.
The court said that the prosecution, despite arguing that Revanna had kidnapped the maid to “shield” his son, could not produce any material to establish this. Prajwal Revanna, the incumbent MP from Hassan, fled the country after several assault charges were brought against him.
Another aspect that weighed heavily on the judge was that the victim’s statement about her kidnapping was recorded about four to five days after she was rescued. This, the judge said, “clearly cast a reasonable doubt with respect to existence or otherwise of a prima facie case”.
While directing him to execute a personal bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties, the court also imposed conditions to ensure Revanna does not threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses. Apart from ordering him to furnish his passport to the court, he was restrained from leaving the state without obtaining the court’s written permission. He was told to appear before the investigating officer every second Sunday of the month till the chargesheet is filed.
Uttkarsh Mishra is a first-year law student at NALSAR and is interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)