Karnataka High Court Refuses To Suspend Prajwal Revanna's Life Sentence In Rape Case

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected an application filed by convicted former Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna, seeking suspension of life sentence imposed on him in the first rape case registered at the Holenarasipura Rural Police Station of Hassan District.

A division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice Venkatesh Naik T said,

"Weighing the material on record, the gravity of the offence, and considering the effect on other pending cases against the appellant, if the appellant is released on bail, this court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for granting suspension of sentence and bail."

The bench noted that multiple cases are filed against the appellant accusing him of sexual abuse. In this case also during trial he was not extended the benefit of bail. Records showed that the victim had not mustered courage to report the incident to police having regard to the sound political and economic background of the appellant.

It said, “The connected matters are still pending trial. Therefore, there is much force in submission of ld Special Public Prosecutor if sentence is suspended the witnesses in other cases are likely to be tampered with.”

The court also said that if there is an urgency in the matter, it is open to the appellant to seek an early hearing and the matter can be listed for final hearing on priority basis.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra appearing for Revanna had argued that the prosecution's case is shaky and the linkage of evidence is not made out and that he should not be kept in custody.

"I will say that it is a case where there is no incriminating evidence and it is a complete media trial," Luthra had argued.

He referred to the evidence of prosecution witnesses and pointed to the discrepancies in the collection of electronic, medical and forensic evidence by the prosecution.

He said, “The first submission is that video from open source is not worth credibility. This is an offence which is reported after 3 to 4 years. Even after the PW 1 (victim) comes into police control there is a delay in recording the complaint. The farmhouse where this (alleged sexual assault) has happened is no more in existence. The ownership of the building is with somebody else.”

He also pointed out that the prosecution failed to produce the call records of the victim's phone, which she possessed to prove her location at the time of the alleged offence.

Referring to the impugned order, it was submitted that, “On August 1, conviction was pronounced and on August 2, sentence was given. I had to be given a meaningful hearing. I am saying if you have to give maximum punishment, give me some opportunity to show mitigating circumstances.”

He also argued that due to political vendetta the accused was falsely implicated, three to four years after the alleged incident.

On the other hand the prosecution opposed the application and contended that if enlarged on bail he (Revanna) is not only likely to indulge in similar offences but would also be a menace to the society.

Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar said “The manner in which the appellant committed the offence against the victim is also important. The other factor is if at all the appellant is enlarged on bail he is not only likely to indulge in similar offences and he would be a menace to the society. Since the abduction case where the victim in this case is the witness the trial of that case against the parents of the appellant will be seriously jeopardized. The victim being abducted twice earlier is an indication that it could be further aggravated if the appellant is released on bail.”

Kumar also submitted that there are nine main principles governing grant of bail in appeal. He said “First is the possibility of delay in disposal of appeal, it is a major factor. In the instant case, there is an expeditious disposal of the case. Now that appeal is before the court we are ready to address the court on merits.”

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay where cases against MP's and MLA's are directed to be monitored by the High Court for quick disposal he said “I would strongly recommend the spirit of directions be kept in mind and this appeal be taken up on priority basis.”

He further said that Revanna has not cooperated with the investigations and this conduct is also to be taken note of while considering his bail plea.

"He did his best to frustrate the trial. He has not surrendered his phone which was used for recording all the sexual acts he committed against the victim which were recorded by him," Kumar added.

On the nature/gravity of the offence Kumar said, “In the instant case the allegation is one of rape by the employer against gullible rustic village servant working in the house that to during the lockdown period. It is a heinous offence and repeatedly indulged in is the finding of trial court. So does not warrant for release on bail.”

Kumar also argued that bail is the rule and jail is an exception that principle is available under Section 439 CrPc (regular bail) but not here as Prajwal Revanna had suffered conviction. The loopholes or lacunae pointed out in the evidence cannot be considered at this stage, Kumar added.

Then he submitted that the sole testimony of the victim in such an offence is sufficient for conviction and corroboration is not needed even though corroboration is available in the present case. “If I am able to show that conviction can be based on victim testimony then other evidence need not be looked into at all,” he said.

The bench refused to agree with the submission of the appellant and observed that “The arguments of the appellant mainly touched upon the merits of the matter. At the time of considering the application for suspension of sentence. The court has to examine whether prima-facie the impugned order is pertinently illegal and there is fair chance given to the appellant. Hearing on application is not as detailed as on the merits of the appeal.”

It added “The appellant court while considering the application cannot pick up the evidence and try to pick up some lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution. The ld Sr counsel for appellant has gone into political rivalry, delay in lodging complaint, and FSL reports. Captured videos are not seized and the appellant never visited the farmhouse, as it is not belonging to them, the victim did not work in the farmhouse and the farmhouse belongs to someone else. DNA Examination was not under procedure established under law.”

The court said “All these aspects will have to be looked into at the time of final hearing of the appeal filed by the appellant. We are unable to agree with the contention coming from the ld Sr counsel appearing for the appellant that either there is absolutely no case against the appellant or the evidence against him is so weak and feeble in nature that proceedings could be terminated in his favour.”

It clarified that “Any observations touching upon the merits of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the application filed under section 389 crPC and shall not be construed as expression of final opinion on the appeal.”

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat had on April 3 framed charges against Revanna under Sections 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of dominance), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354(A) (sexual harassment), 354(B) (assault or use of force with intent to disrobe), 354(C) (voyeurism), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC and Section 66(e) of the Information Technology Act.

The judge had convicted him of all charges, and on August 2, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Challenging the conviction, Revanna has filed an appeal in the High Court. In his appeal, this application seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail has been filed.

The court has now posted the appeal for final hearing on January 12, 2026.

Case Title: State By Special Investigation Team v. Prajwal Revanna

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1977/2025

Appearance: Sr Advocate Sidharth Luthra for Advocate Girish Kumar B M for Appellant.

SPP Professor Ravivarma Kumar a/w ADSPP B N Jagadeesha for Respondent.