Karnataka High Court Says Trial Court Order Granting Bail to HD Revanna in Kidnapping Case Appears to Have 'Errored' - 2024-06-01

The Karnataka High Court on Friday observed infirmity with the trial court order granting bail to Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Revanna in connection with the kidnapping case filed against him. The court said the trial court appeared to have errored in its interpretation of certain legal provisions while granting bail to former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda's son.

Making oral observations into the case, Justice Krishna SDixit issued an emergent notice to Revanna and sought his response to a bail cancellation petition.

The court's observation came after the Special Investigation Team (SIT)-- constituted by the State to probe the kidnapping and sexual abuse allegations against HD Revanna and his son, Prajwal Revanna -- approached it with a bail cancellation plea saying that the trial court appeared to be defective in its interpretation of section 364A (kidnapping for ransom) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

HD Revanna is facing two criminal cases-- one involving sexual assault allegations and the other of kidnapping. He was granted bail in both cases earlier this month.

Notably, HD Revanna has also moved the High Court with two petitions to quash the first information reports (FIR) filed against him. The plea challenging the FIR against Revanna in the abduction case was heard today by Justice Dixit .

Representing Revanna , advocate CV Nagesh contended that Section 364A of the IPC cannot be invoked against the JD (S) leader, even if the allegations in the complaint were taken at face value. He argued that it is not enough to allege that an abduction has been carried out for this provision to be cited. An allegation that a demand or a threat was issued should also be part of the criminal complaint for Section 364A, IPC to be invoked, he said. No such allegation is part of the complaint, he added.

The allegation of Revanna having abducted a woman was also denied. "According to the prosecution, she was my servant for over 10 years. I did not kidnap her. If I had asked her to come, she would have come," Nagesh contended.

Justice Dixit has listed this case for further hearing on June 3, Monday, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice.