Prajwal Revanna.
Credit: Reuters File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain the bail plea by suspended JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna in cases related to sexual assaults of multiple women, unearthed after the leak of explicit videos during Parliament elections.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the plea saying the charges against him are serious.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi along with advocate Balaji Srinivasan contended though the allegations are serious, the complaint does not initially talk about rape charges under Section 376 IPC.
"You are so powerful," the bench told Revanna's counsel.
The counsel said the charge sheet has been filed, and the petitioner, who was an MP, has already lost the elections.
The court, however, was not inclined to entertain the plea.
The counsel requested the court to allow the petitioner to renew the application after six months.
"We will not say anything," the bench said.
In a special leave petition, Revanna, grandson of former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda, assailed the Karnataka High Court's order of October 21, rejecting his bail plea.
The High Court's Justice M Nagaprasanna had rejected his bail applications, holding charges levelled against him primary facie depicted wanton lust, and depravity of senses which have had a chilling effect on the society.
Prajwal's father H D Revanna was arrested in the case but was later granted bail. His mother Bhavani Revanna, also named as accused in a complaint got anticipatory bail.
Prajwal was arrested from Bengaluru airport on May 31 by CID's SIT on his return from Germany where he remained holed up for 35 days after hundreds of explicit videos surfaced allegedly featuring him with multiple women.
He had left for Germany on April 27 a day after polling was held in Parliamentary constituency Hassan. He lost the Lok Sabha election by over 40,000 votes.
In his plea, the petitioner claimed the present FIR is a "calculated act of persecution, orchestrated by political adversaries seeking to eliminate his influence and popular support. The First Informant acts merely as a proxy, carrying out this strategy of harassment on behalf of these opponents."
The petitioner also claimed the High Court failed to appreciate the years delay in lodging the FIR and also overlooked the implications of the timing of the complaint’s filing and the informant’s television appearance close to the election date, coupled with politically charged statements by public officials, indicating a potentially politically motivated implication.
The plea also contended the High Court failed to recognise that the Chief Minister’s public statements imputing involvement in alleged crimes, made before the registration of the FIR, constituted prejudgment and could influence the investigation, thereby affecting the petitioner’s right to a fair trial.