‘Women Deserve Preferential Treatment’: Karnataka High Court Grants Pre-arrest Bail to Bhavani Revanna

The Karnataka High Court, on Tuesday, granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, stating that women, by their very nature, deserve preferential treatment, particularly in matters relating to bail, whether regular or anticipatory.

“In our social structure, women are the epicenters of family life; their displacement, even for a short period, ordinarily disturbs the dependents. Added, they are emotionally attached to the family. Therefore, investigating agencies should be very cautious while seeking their custodial interrogation. Women by their very nature deserve preferential treatment inter alia in matters relating to bail, regular or anticipatory”, the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit held. 

Bhavani Revanna, the daughter-in-law of former prime minister H D Deve Gowda, was implicated in a kidnapping case connected to her son’s alleged sexual misconduct, with charges filed under IPC sections 64(A), 365, 109, and 120(B). On April 29, her husband, HD Revanna, was also arrested in relation to this case but was later released on bail.

The allegations, filed on April 28 at the Holenarasipura town police station, involve claims of sexual abuse by HD Revanna and his son, Prajwal Revanna, made by their house help. On June 1, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) issued a notice to Bhavani Revanna for questioning. However, when the SIT visited her residence, she was absent, prompting searches in multiple locations, including Mysuru, Hassan, Bengaluru, Mandya, and Ramanagara, but they did not locate her.

The controversy surrounding the JD(S) family intensified after explicit videos surfaced on April 21. Prajwal Revanna, who lost the Lok Sabha election from the Hassan constituency and fled to Germany on April 27, returned to India on May 31 and was arrested by the SIT at the Bengaluru airport on rape charges. His father, HD Revanna, is out on bail for the same case. The Karnataka government established the SIT to investigate the allegations against Prajwal following a recommendation from the Karnataka State Commission for Women chairperson, Nagalakshmi Chowdhary.

The court rejected the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor that substantial material had been collected during the investigation, identifying the Bhavani as the 'King Pin' of the entire episode. It was noted that Section 364A of the IPC did not appear applicable at this stage, although new facts might emerge during the investigation that could change this. There was no suggestion that the alleged risk to the abductee’s life was instigated by the Bhavani, and neither the complainant nor his mother mentioned Bhavani in their statements.

The court remarked the argument that no bail, anticipatory or regular, could be granted in serious offenses as untenable. The court opined that the principle of ‘Bail is the rule and jail is the exception’, was still valid, subject to exceptions for terrorism, PMLA, treason, attacks on defense or police personnel, etc. Therefore, the contention that the case involved heinous offences did not merit acceptance.

The court further rejected the Special Public Prosecutor’s argument that Bhavani was needed for custodial interrogation. The court highlighted that the need for custodial interrogation was not substantiated, and Bhavani’s presence at the investigation was adequately provided for by the court's directions. 

“In our evolved system, the freedom has been broadened from precedent to precerdent. Makers of Constitution have founded a Welfare State for us in the light of lessons drawn from the experience during the Colonial Regime. Our Constitution does not enact Idi Amin Jurisprudence, nor does our Criminal Justice System. Despite vociferous submissions, why the police want custodial interrogation has not been even nearly substantiated and therefore, it cannot be granted, law having heavily loaded against such a claim”, the court remarked. 

The contention that the Bhavani had not prevented her son from committing offenses was also rejected by the bench. There was no legal obligation shown that a mother must prevent her adult children from committing crimes. “But, what duty a mother owes in law to prevent her major children from committing offences, has not been shown by turning the pages of statute book or by citing rulings”, the bench further opined. 

Bhavani’s political background and family connections were acknowledged, but these were not sufficient reasons to deny bail, the court further outlined. “Even the arguable misuse of political influence for desired exculpation from the case also can be taken care of by the State machinery having enormous authority”, the court observed. 

In conclusion, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including that the Bhavani shall not enter the districts of Mysore and Hassan except for investigation purposes.

For Petitioners: Senior Advocates CV Nagesh and Sandeep Chouta with Advocate Girish Kumar 

For Respondents: Special Public Prosecutors Ravivarma Kumar and BN Jagadeesh 

Case Title: Smt. Bhavani Revanna v State Of Karnataka (CRL.P.NO.5125 of 2024)