Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
A division bench of Justices KS Mudgal and Venkatesh Naik T on Wednesday, December 3, said that considering the gravity of the crime, multiple cases pending against him and the risk of witness tampering, this is not a case suitable for bail.
The judges said that even during the trial, Revanna was not granted bail and the victim had delayed reporting the attack because of her influential background.
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing Revanna, argued that the conviction was based on weak evidence and was influenced by a “media trial”. He questioned the reliability of electronic evidence, pointed to delays in the FIR and procedural lapses in the forensic investigation, and said the defense was not given adequate opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence. He also claimed political vendetta was behind the allegations.
Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor Professor Ravivarma Kumar cited earlier kidnapping attempts and argued that releasing Revanna on bail would endanger the victim and witnesses.
Kumar argued that the seriousness of the repeated sexual offenses against a vulnerable domestic worker during the lockdown period and Revanna’s alleged non-cooperation, “including failure to surrender her phone,” weighed heavily against bail.
The prosecution also told the court that the case has progressed rapidly and the appeal can also be heard expeditiously in line with the Supreme Court’s directions to give priority to cases involving MPs and MLAs.
Kumar emphasized that after conviction, the legal principle is reversed – “jail is the rule, not bail” and the victim’s testimony alone was legally sufficient to uphold the conviction.
The bench said that the defense arguments largely address the merits of the appeal and the alleged evidentiary deficiencies should be examined only during the final hearing.
It clarified that the High Court would not re-evaluate each piece of evidence at the stage of deciding suspension of sentence, and found no prima facie illegality in the trial court’s order.
After rejecting his plea for bail, the High Court has scheduled the final hearing on his appeal for January 12, 2026.
The case in which Revanna has been sentenced pertains to a 48-year-old woman who was working as a help at the family’s Gannikada farmhouse in Holenarasipura in Hassan district.
She was allegedly raped twice in 2021 – at Hassan Farm House and Bengaluru residence – and the act was recorded by the accused on his mobile phone.
The trial court had relied on a range of evidence to convict him, including video footage, DNA analysis of hair strands and biological traces found on the victim’s clothing.
Four separate cases have been registered against Revanna, who is facing rape and sexual harassment charges, and the SIT has been assigned the responsibility of investigating the cases.
These cases came to light after a pen-drive containing explicit videos allegedly belonging to Revanna was circulated in Hassan ahead of the Lok Sabha elections on April 26, 2024.