Court News Updates

Supreme Court issues notice on Karnataka SIT plea against anticipatory bail granted to Bhavani Revanna

The Supreme Court today issued notice on the petition lodged by the Karnataka Special Investigation Team (SIT) against the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, mother of Prajwal Revanna, in a case for the alleged kidnapping of a woman. JDU leader Prajwal Revanna is also facing cases for alleged sexual offences committed against several women.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, though initially expressed reservation about the Karnataka SIT's plea, ultimately agreed to issue notice to the accused. Appearing for Karnataka SIT, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated that the relief granted to Bhavani Revanna was most unfortunate.

Responding, Justice Kant asked the senior counsel to leave apart the political reasons, but see the reasons given by the High Court. He added that the accused is a woman, aged 55 years, and there are serious allegations against her son of indulging in atrocious things. He continued that in a case of these kinds of allegations, what will be the role of the mother in abetting the crime committed by her son?

Subsequently, Kapil Sibal said that there are statements indicating that the victim was actually kidnapped. Nonetheless, the bench continued investigating the state, asking what was the evidence against her. During the hearing, Justice Bhuyan observed that there was nothing directly against her. The top court bench also wondered whether the respondent, being a mother, would be involved in the sexual crimes allegedly committed by her son.

In an attempt to persuade the bench, Senior Advocate Sibal asserted that the statement of the victim recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC referred to the role of Bhavani in putting her under captivity. He contended that the victim was under captivity under the directions of the family. The mother of the JDU leader is the one who called, and she is the one who directed the captivity, Sibal submitted.

The judge further stated that they are only considering the question of liberty of a woman. IN addition, Justice Kant said that the bench was only considering a limited point regarding the protection granted to her from arrest. He added that if she is guilty, ultimately it will be proved in the trial.

Kapil Sibal contended that the bench should not be under the impression that she was not involved in the crime merely because she was a woman. Consecutively, the bench agreed to issue notice.