Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section of the (CrPC) filed by Bhavani Revanna, mother of suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajjwal Revanna, the Bench of Krishna S. Dixit, J.*, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and clarified that she shall not enter the districts of Mysore & Hassan in any circumstance except for the purpose of investigation.
Background: The complainant lodged an FIR on 02-05-2024 for offences punishable u/s. & r/w Sec. of (IPC), alleging that his mother was forcibly abducted and taken to Holenarasipura on a bike on 29-04-2024. It was stated that in the FIR that on the next day, the complainant’s mother was brought back and left at Mysore with instructions that she should not tell anything about the incident to the Police.
The petitioner’s husband, H.D. Revanna, and one other person were named in the FIR. The complainant had further alleged that 2 persons visited his house and told him that his mother was shown to be sexually abused by the petitioner’s son in a mobile video.
The complainant lastly alleged that his mother was forcibly taken to an unknown place and confined and that she has a risk to her life; therefore, legal action should be taken against the perpetrators.
Court’s Assessment: Perusing the matter, the Court expressed its inclination to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner due to the following reasons-
The complainant, who is the son of the abducted lady, does not implicate the petitioner. He requests the police to act only against two specified persons- the petitioner’s husband, and the other named person.
Taking note of S. of , the Court agreed with the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel that the provision is not invokable in the case at its present stage although new facts that may arguably emerge during the progressive investigation may warrant its attraction. The Court pointed out that there is no whisper vis-a-vis any argued risk to abductee’s life at the instance of petitioner and no such assumption can be made against the petitioner who has not been named by the complainant or by his mother in her Sections & , statements.
The Court pointed out that, “’Bail is rule and jail is an exception’ has not yet been rendered “much ado signifying nothing”. It still animates our Criminal Jurisprudence subject to all just exceptions, such as cases of terrorism, PMLA, treason, attack on Defence/Police Personnel, etc. Of course, there are exceptions to these exceptions, is also true”. The Court stated that the respondent did not make any case that can act as an exception to the ‘Bail is rule, jail is an exception’.
The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that the Courts under no circumstance can examine the tenability of the police claim for custodial interrogation. The Court pointed that such a contention, if accepted, will strike a death knell of the sacrosanct guarantees of freedom & liberty enshrined by the Constitution and progressively construed by the Courts. “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 also rejected the respondents’ arguments that the petitioner has been non-cooperative in the investigation. The Court pointed out that as per instructed by the earlier court orders, the petitioner has answered 80 questions so far. “The police cannot insist that an accused should give answers in the way as the police desire. After all, in our evolved Criminal Jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent and that she has a constitutional guarantee against compulsive self-incrimination vide Article of the ”.
The Court also rejected the respondents’ contention that the petitioner failed to prevent her son from sexually abusing several women and flee the country, therefore she should not be granted bail. The Court pointed out that the petitioner’s son is facing criminal charges and has been arrested the moment he landed in India. “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. History & epics bear testimony to the fact that children of noble parents may commit delinquencies. Vice versa may also be true”. Thus, the Court pointed out that nothing was placed on record to show that the petitioner happened to be an abettor in the cases of sexual abuse of women registered against her son. The Court noted that facts of cases against Prajjawal Revanna cannot be much read into the case registered against the petitioner while deciding her advance bail petition.
Taking note of the petitioner’s powerful political family, the Court stated all that cannot be a sole consideration for denying bail in a matter like this, especially when petitioner is a married woman having a settled family and roots in society. The Court further pointed out that there is no Thumb Rule that arguably in serious matters like this, invocation of bail jurisdiction should never be permitted.
Lastly, vis-a-vis preferential treatment of women regarding bail, the Court stated that in Indian social structure, women are the epicenters of family life; their displacement, even for a short period, ordinarily disturbs the dependents and that they are emotionally attached to their 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”.
However, the Court also clarified that it is open to the police to seek cancellation of bail if any breach of conditions or abuse of propriety/privilege happens.
[Bhavani Revanna v. State of Karnataka, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5125 OF 2024, decided on 18-06-2024]
*Order by Justice Krishna S. Dixit
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioner- C V NAGESH., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SANDESH CHOUTA., SENIOR COUNSEL A/W GIRISH KUMAR B M., ADVOCATE
For respondents- PROF. RAVIVARMA KUMAR., SPL. PP A/W B.N JAGADEESH., SPL PP
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .