New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by former MP Prajwal Revanna against the Karnataka High Court's order, which declined to grant him bail in cases lodged in connection with sexual assaults of multiple women, brought to light after leak of purported videos ahead of Lok Sabha election.
Revanna is the grandson of former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected the plea filed through advocate Balaji Srinivasan.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Revanna, said that the allegations are serious but there are two-three factors.
He contended the complaint does not talk of rape. He said the petitioner had contested an election to the MP, which he lost due to this matter.
“You are so powerful…,” the bench said, alluding to the charges.
Rohatgi said that the chargesheet in the matter has been filed.
“I was abroad. I came back and surrendered. Chargesheet is filed now. I was an MP earlier. I contested for MP. I lost because of all this," he said.
However, the bench made it clear that it is not keen to entertain the petition.
The counsel asked the court that the petitioner may be allowed to apply after six months.
"We will not say anything," the bench said.
Prajwal's father H D Revanna was arrested in the case but he was later granted bail, and his mother Bhavani Revanna, also named as accused in a complaint, has secured the anticipatory bail.
The special leave petition filed by Revanna has challenged the order passed by the high court on October 21. The high court had rejected his bail plea.
The high court’s judge Justice M Nagaprasanna had said that charges levelled against him prima facie depicted wanton lust, depravity of senses which have got a chilling effect on the society.
In May, Prajwal was arrested from Bengaluru airport by CID's SIT on his return from Germany. He was holed up in Germany for 35 days after hundreds of explicit videos surfaced allegedly featuring him with multiple women. He had lost the election by over 40,000 votes.
In the case, the petitioner claimed 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.
"The 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," his plea claimed.
It also cited more than four years delay in lodging the FIR.
