Women are epicenters of family life, deserve preferential treatment in bail cases: Karnataka High Court

Women are the epicenters of family life and caution should be exercised before demanding their custodial interrogation in criminal cases, the Karnataka High Court observed on Tuesday..Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observations in his order granting anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna in a kidnapping case linked to the sexual abuse allegations against her son and former Member of Parliament, Prajwal Revanna.The Court added that women by their nature deserve preferential treatment in bail matters."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 Court was also not impressed by the State's criticism of Bhavani Revanna's purported failure to stop her son from allegedly engaging in the rape and sexual assault of numerous women."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 accused of being involved in the kidnapping of a woman, who was one among several women allegedly sexually assaulted by her son. The kidnapping was allegedly done to prevent the victim from filing a complaint.The Court had earlier granted her interim anticipatory bail, provided that she cooperated with the investigation and did not enter the districts of Mysore and Hassan, where the crime allegedly took place.This interim order was made final today, with the Court granting Bhavani Revanna anticipatory bail after rejecting the State's allegation that she has not been cooperating with the investigating authorities..Special Public Prosecutor and Senior Advocate Prof Ravivarma Kumar had earlier argued that Revanna had given false answers during interrogation and tried to mislead the investigation.The Court, however, opined that the police cannot expect Bhavani Revanna to answer in a way that would please the investigating agency."The police cannot insist that an accused should give answers in the way as 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..Among other observations, the High Court noted that the first information report (FIR) filed in the kidnapping case by the victim's son only demanded action against HD Revanna and one Satish Babanna. Bhavani Revanna was not initially implicated, the Court noted.The Court further found merit in the submission made by Bhavani Revanna's lawyer, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh ,that the cited offence of Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom, etc) of the Indian Penal Court (IPC) does not appear to have been made out against Bhavani Revanna."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 further noted that the police could always seek the cancellation of bail if Bhavani Revanna were to breach any bail condition or abuse her privileges.With these observations, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition..Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta appeared along with Nagesh for Bhavani Revanna.Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh assisted Prof Varma for the State..[Read Order]