Abduction case: Karnataka High Court orders issue of notices to H.D. Revanna, SIT on petitions filed by them against each other

Karnataka High Court orders notices in abduction case against H.D. Revanna, challenging bail cancellation and interpretation of law.

The Karnataka High Court on Friday, May 31, ordered issue of notices to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on a petition filed by former minister H.D. Revanna, who has challenged registration of an abduction case against him, and to Mr. Revanna on a petition filed by the SIT, which has sought cancellation of bail granted to him by a special court in the case.

Justice Krishna S. Dixit, before whom both the petitions came up for hearing, has adjourned the hearing on SIT’s petitions observing that the SIT has made out an arguable case by pointing out interpretation of Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom, etc.,) made by the Special Court of Sessions for criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in its May 13 order of granting bail to Mr. Revanna.

Earlier, Senior Advocate and SIT’s Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Ravivarma Kumar had pointed out that the special court has committed an error in interpretation of Section 364A and the High Court has to examine whether the order of granting bail was perverse and arbitrary both in law and on facts of the case.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate C.V. Nagesh, appearing for Mr. Revanna in the petition questioning the legality of registration of case under Section 364A of the IPC by K.R. Nagar police, has argued that the complaint, filed by victim’s son, has no ingredient for invoking Section 364A of IPC.

The ingredients like ransom, force or deceit are absent in the complaint as the woman had herself accompanied Satish Babanna, one of the accused, who had gone in a ‘right royal way’ to the woman’s house in K.R. Nagar and asked her to accompany him on his motorcycle, by allegedly stating that he was acting on Mr. Revanna’s instructions.

However, SPP Mr. Kumar, citing the meaning of the word “deceit” from the Black’s dictionary, told the Court that what has been made out in the present case is only a ‘trailer’ and lot more is yet to come. But Mr. Nagesh said that the sections of the IPC invoked in the First Information Report (FIR) cannot travel beyond the contents of the complaint.

The Court adjourned the hearing on the petition by ordering issue of notice to the complainant.