Karnataka High Court grants anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna in kidnapping case

The court has also imposed conditions that Bhavani shall not enter the Mysuru and Hassan districts.

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna in the abduction case registered at KR Nagar police station in Mysuru district.

“Despite vociferous submissions, why the police want custodial interrogation has not been even clearly substantiated and therefore, it cannot be granted, law having heavily loaded against such a claim,” Justice Krishna S Dixit, said while allowing the petition filed by Bhavani.

The son of the victim woman had filed the complaint, alleging that his mother had been kept in confinement. In this case, Bhavani’s husband and Holenarasipura MLA HD Revanna granted anticipatory bail. Bhavani moved the HC after the special court refused her anticipatory bail.

During the pendency of this petition, Bhavani had appeared before the SIT on three days, as per the directions of the HC. The SIT had claimed that Bhavani did not cooperate with the investigation and also gave false answers. The SIT further contended that Bhavani is the ’king pin’ in the case and since IPC section 364A is (kidnapping for ransom) is invoked, no anticipatory bail can be granted.

The court perused the material and noted that Bhavani had answered a total of 80 questions posed by the SIT. “There is not even a whisper that the argued risk to the abductee's life is at the instance of the petitioner. Even otherwise, no assumption of the kind can be made against the petitioner who is not named by the complainant or by his mother in her (CrPC) sections 161 & 164 statements that are furnished in a sealed cover,” the court said, observing that when IPC section 364A is found to be prima facie not invokable, the remaining offences do not attract the capital punishment, life imprisonment or imprisonment for ten years also.

The court dismissed the proposition cited by the prosecution that the courts cannot examine the tenability of the police claim for custodial interrogation.

“In our evolved system, freedom has been broadened from precedent to precedent. Makers of the 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,” Justice Krishna Dixit said.

The court also said that though citizens should comply with a police notice under CrPC section 41A, sometimes the matter will not be as simple as it purports to be. “This court takes judicial notice of cases wherein police had effected arrest and detention despite notice in due compliance appearing before them for interrogation/investigation. Unless such notices assure citizens of ‘no arrest/detention’, one cannot falter their knocking at the doors of court for redressal of their grievance. Citizens have a feeling of distrust in the governmental functionaries in general and police personnel in particular. A section of the society sees the State as the first opponent, if not as the enemy,” the court said.

The court also said that it is always open to the SIT to seek for cancellation of bail if any conditions are breached by the petitioner. The court has imposed a condition that petitioner shall not enter Mysuru and Hassan districts, except for investigation purposes.

Preferential treatment of women in bail matters

The HC said that the investigating agencies should be very cautious while seeking the custodial interrogation of women. “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,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said.