Additionally, the High Court mandated that the trial court render a decision within ten days of Revanna entering his plea.
In the rape case against him, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday ordered suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna to first request bail from the sessions court.
After the trial court makes a decision regarding Revanna's bail request, Justice SR Krishna Kumar stated that he is free to reapply to the High Court if necessary.
Revanna has entered a bail plea in this case for the second time.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi argued on behalf of Revanna that the High Court might hear the case directly. The High Court, however, believed that Revanna should first exhaust his remedies in front of the trial court.
Consequently, it requested that Revanna appear in the trial court.
Revanna submitted the second release request, arguing that since the High Court denied his first bail request last year, things had changed.
The High Court also ordered the trial court to rule on Revanna's new bail plea within 10 days of its filing, per Navadgi's request.
After more than 2,900 videos showing many women being sexually assaulted went viral online, notably on social media, Revanna was named as the primary defendant in four cases.
A domestic worker who had previously worked at the Revanna family's farmhouse filed the first of these lawsuits in April of last year. She claims that Prajwal Revanna had raped her multiple times and threatened to release images of the attack if she spoke out about it. The first alleged rape occurred in 2021.
Revanna was charged with a number of crimes by a Bengaluru trial court, including rape, voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and unapproved distribution of private photos.
His initial bail request was denied by the Karnataka High Court in October of last year. Additionally, the Supreme Court denied him bail in the case.
Revanna submitted a second bail request to the High Court in March of this year. His attorney contended that Revanna would be eligible for release due to a change in circumstances.
In this context, Senior Advocate Navadgi contended that Revanna had been imprisoned for an excessively long period of time due to an excessive delay in the case's trial. According to Navadgi, this infringed upon his right to life and liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The State opposed the bail request, arguing that Revanna and his family were to blame for any trial delays, and was represented by its Special Public Prosecutors (SPPs), Senior Advocate Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar and BN Jagadeesha.
The High Court requested that Revanna move the trial court first after hearing arguments from the parties.
The sessions court (trial court) will now have to consider the case.
In its ruling today, the High Court made it clear that all arguments in the case are still up for debate.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
