The Karnataka High Court noted on Tuesday that women are the centre of family life and that care should be taken before requiring their detention for questioning in criminal cases.
In his ruling giving Bhavani Revanna anticipatory bail in a kidnapping case related to the claims of sexual abuse against her son and former Member of Parliament, Prajwal Revanna, Justice Krishna S. Dixit made the following observations:
The Court further stated that women should be given preference in bail issues due to their inherent qualities.
“In our social structure, women are the epicenters of family life; their displacement, even for a short period, ordinarily disturbs the dependents. Added, they are emotionally attached to the 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,” the order stated.
The state’s accusation of Bhavani Revanna for allegedly failing to stop her son from raping and sexually abusing multiple women did not impress the court either.
“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,” the Court remarked.
Bhavani Revanna is charged with being complicit in the abduction of a woman, one of the multiple people her son is said to have molested. The abduction was purportedly carried out to impede the victim from lodging a grievance.
The court had already approved her temporary anticipatory bail on the condition that she cooperate with the investigation and stay away from the alleged crime scenes in Mysore and Hassan.
Today, the Court rendered this interim ruling final by giving Bhavani Revanna anticipatory bail and dismissing the State’s claim that she has not been assisting the investigating agencies.
Prof. Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor had previously contended that Revanna had attempted to manipulate the probe by providing misleading answers while under questioning.
Nonetheless, the Court held that the police could not reasonably expect Bhavani Revanna to respond in a fashion that would appease the investigative team.
“The police cannot insist that an accused should give answers in the way 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 20(3),” the order said.
The High Court made several points, one of which was that the victim’s son’s initial information report (FIR) in the kidnapping case only called for action against HD Revanna and one Satish Babanna. The Court pointed out that Bhavani Revanna was not initially involved.
The Court also acknowledged the value of Bhavani Revanna’s attorney, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh, who argued that Bhavani Revanna did not seem to have been proven guilty of the cited offence of kidnapping for ransom, etc., as defined by the Indian Penal Court (IPC).
“There is not even a whisper that the argued risk to abductee’s life is at the instance of petitioner (Bhavani Revanna)…the contention that the case involves heinous offences that should abhor the request for bail, regular or anticipatory, does not merit acceptance,” the Court observed.
The High Court reiterated the principle that “bail is the rule and jail the exception.”
It further said that it cannot be expected to endorse “Idi Amin (an Ugandan dictator) jurisprudence” by not examining whether there was a need for Bhavani Revanna to undergo custodial interrogation.
“Makers of Constitution have founded a Welfare State for us in the light of lessons drawn from the experience during the Colonial Regime. Our Constitution does not enact Idi Amin Jurisprudence, nor does our Criminal Justice System,” the order said.
The Court added that although Bhavani Revanna hails from a “political background”, this cannot be the sole ground to reject her plea for anticipatory bail, “especially when she is a married woman having a settled family and roots in the society.”
It was also said that if Bhavani Revanna violated any bail requirements or abused her rights, the police could always ask to have her bail revoked.
The Court granted the motion for anticipatory bail based on these observations.
Nagesh and Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta made an appearance for Bhavani Revanna.
BN Jagadeesh, a Special Public Prosecutor for the State, assisted Prof. Varma.
