Karnataka HC directs rape accused Prajwal Revanna to seek bail from sessions court
Justice SR Krishna Kumar said the suspended JD(S) leader may return to the High Court, if necessary, after the lower court considers his plea.
The judge observed that Revanna should exhaust all remedies before the trial court before seeking intervention from the High Court.
This was the accused's second attempt to secure bail in the case.
Revanna's earlier plea for bail was dismissed by the HC in October 2023. Subsequently, the Supreme Court also declined to grant him relief.
Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, appearing for Revanna, argued that the court was well within its powers to hear the bail application directly.
However, the bench maintained that the correct legal course would be to first move to the sessions court.
The High Court has directed the trial court to decide on the fresh bail plea within 10 days from the date of its filing.
In March 2024, he filed a fresh bail application in the HC, citing a "change in circumstances'.
His legal team argued that the prolonged delay in commencing the trial had resulted in a violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
Revanna is the main accused in four separate FIRs involving allegations of sexual assault, voyeurism, and circulation of obscene material.
The FIRs were filed after around 3,000 video clips allegedly depicting sexual violence were widely shared on social media platforms.
The first FIR was filed in April 2023 by a domestic worker employed at Revanna's family-owned farmhouse. She accused him of repeatedly raping her and threatening to leak footage of the abuse if she spoke out.
According to her complaint, the assaults began in 2021.
The trial court framed several charges against Revanna, including rape, criminal intimidation, voyeurism, and distribution of private images without consent.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
No resumption of MGNREGA work in West Bengal despite HC order says PBKMS
Despite an order by the Calcutta High Court, to resume MGNREGA in West Bengal from August 1, there has been no resumption of 100 days work, Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity, a union of agricultural workers, said on Friday (August 1, 2025). Hearing a petition of PBKMS a division bench of the Calcutta High Court headed by T.S. Sivagnanam on June 18 directed the resumption of the scheme from August 1 'Yet, even after this landmark victory for rural workers, both the Central and State governments have chosen to brazenly defy the Court's order. Instead of preparing for the resumption of work, block offices in multiple districts are refusing to even accept job applications. This is a deliberate attack on the right to work of the state's poorest,' a press statement by PBKMS said. The union also added that job applications by people made under MGNREGA have been rejected. 'In just four days, between 28th and 31st July 2025, 2,092 job applications were submitted across block offices in Purulia, South 24 Parganas, and North 24 Parganas districts. Meanwhile, job applications from 1,349 workers were illegally rejected in 9 block offices across 7 districts,' the union said. A representative of PBKMS said that when they contacted the NREGA Commissioner, he clearly stated that no work will begin unless the Central Government issues fresh instructions - a position that clearly undermines the authority of the Calcutta High Court. Alleging willful inaction by both the governments, the union stated that the Central Government is equally guilty and by hiding behind Section 27 of the MGNREGA Act, 'it continues to block the release of funds and work, systematically depriving Bengal's workers of their legal right to employment'. The workers union also claimed that in Nadia district's Krishnagar-II block, when a member of the union accompanied workers to submit job applications, the BDO and several panchayat pradhans responded with abuse and threats, calling him a 'Bangladeshi' and threatening him with arrest and punitive action. Demanding the immediate implementation of MGNREGA work in West Bengal, as per the High Court order, the PBKMS stated that this blatant 'non-compliance with a High Court order is illegal, unjust, and unacceptable and it continue our struggle for the right to work in every village and every district'. Before the Lok Sabha polls in 2024, the Trinamool Congress along with MGNREGA workers held protests in Delhi demanding payment of wages and resumption of work. However, West Bengal's ruling party response to the High Court order has been lukewarm. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has said her government has started Karmashree Prakalpa to provide at least 50 days of wage employment to each Job Card holder household in a financial year. The scheme, however, is not visible at the grass roots level .Work under MGNREGA had stopped in the State since December 2021 which has resulted in widespread rural distress and migration.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Friend not hubby's relative under Sec 498A: Bombay HC
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently held that a friend of husband cannot be treated as his "relative" under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises cruelty to a wife by her husband or his relatives. The court quashed criminal proceedings against a Nagpur resident, who was accused of abetting dowry harassment against his friend's wife. A division bench comprising Justices Anil Pansare and Mahendra Nerlikar said the definition of "relative" must be interpreted strictly. "A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither a blood relative nor did he have any relation through marriage or adoption," the bench ruled in its July 29 order. The friend approached the court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered at Chimur police station in Chandrapur district and the pending criminal case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chimur. The FIR, lodged on June 13, 2022, alleged that the petitioner would frequently visit the couple's home and instigate the husband to demand a plot of land and a car from his wife's family. If the demands were not fulfilled, he allegedly encouraged the husband to send his wife back to her parental home. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like TV providers are furious: this gadget gives you access to all channels Techno Mag Learn More Undo While the counsel for the friend, SA Mohta, argued that he was not related to the husband and hence Section 498A was not applicable to him, the prosecution contended that a broader interpretation of the term "relative" should be adopted to cover such abetment by outsiders. HC relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dechamma IM versus State of Karnataka (2024), where it was held that even a girlfriend or a woman in a romantic relationship with a man cannot be considered a "relative" for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A. "The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption," the SC had observed. The Nagpur bench then concluded that the same principle would apply to a friend of the husband. "Therefore, considering the above facts and upon plain reading of Section 498A of the IPC, we conclude that a friend of the husband will not fall under the definition of 'relative'," the bench held. The court clarified that the petitioner's application did not seek relief for the husband, his mother, and his father, and hence proceedings against them would continue.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Court rap for ED over ‘misleading' post on raid on Jain's premises
New Delhi: A court has criticised the Enforcement Directorate for posting information in a misleading manner on its X account in 2022 regarding a search on the premises of AAP functionary and the then Delhi govt minister Satyendar Jain . The agency should act "impartially", the court observed. The observations came on Thursday from the court of special judge Jitendra Singh while upholding the Feb 20 order of a trial court that there was no prima facie case to proceed against BJP parliamentarian Bansuri Swaraj under criminal defamation provisions. Jain had filed a defamation case against Swaraj over her comments made on the basis of ED's post. "It is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading and free from sensationalism," the judge pointed out. The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous or intended to defame or politically prejudice a person would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, he opined. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi On June 7, 2022, ED posted on X that it had conducted a search on the premises of Jain and others and various incriminating documents, including cash worth 2.85 crore and gold coins weighing 1.80kg, were seized. The judge said the manner in which the phrase "at the premises of Satyendar Kumar Jain and others" was used in the tweet tended to create an impression that the recoveries were made from the former minister's premises. The subsequent inclusion of the phrase, "and others", in a subtle and ambiguous manner, following the explicit naming of Jain, failed to clearly attribute the recoveries to "others" whose residences were also raided, he added. Jain, who was arrested in May 2022 on allegations of money laundering, had challenged the Feb 20 order by a magisterial court, declining to take cognisance of his defamation case against Swaraj. In his complaint, Jain alleged that Swaraj had made defamatory statements against him during an interview aired on Oct 5, 2023, on a news channel, to tarnish his image. He added that the statements were made in the context of an ED raid at his house.
