The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna to first seek bail from the sessions court in the rape case registered against him, before approaching the High Court again if necessary.

Justice SR Krishna Kumar made it clear that Revanna is at liberty to return to the High Court after the trial court delivers its decision. This marks Revanna’s second attempt at securing bail in the matter.

Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadgi, representing Revanna, argued that the High Court had the jurisdiction to directly entertain the bail plea. However, the bench observed that it would be more appropriate for the accused to first exhaust remedies before the trial court.

Responding to Navadgi’s submission, the High Court directed the trial court to decide on the bail plea within ten days of its filing.

Revanna has sought bail on the grounds of a change in circumstances since the High Court’s earlier rejection of his plea in October last year. The Supreme Court too had denied him bail thereafter.

In his latest application, filed in March this year, Revanna cited prolonged judicial delay as a key ground. Navadgi argued that the inordinate delay in the trial has resulted in the continued incarceration of the accused, thereby violating his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State, represented by Special Public Prosecutors—Senior Advocate Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar and Advocate BN Jagadeesha—opposed the plea, asserting that Revanna and his family were themselves responsible for delaying the trial process.

Revanna is the main accused in four separate cases linked to the circulation of over 2,900 obscene video clips, allegedly involving the sexual assault of multiple women. The first complaint was lodged in April 2023 by a domestic worker employed at the Revanna family's farmhouse. She accused Revanna of repeatedly raping her since 2021 and threatening to leak videos of the assault if she spoke out.

A Bengaluru trial court has already framed charges against him for rape, voyeurism, criminal intimidation, and unauthorized distribution of private images.

In its order, the High Court reiterated that all legal arguments and contentions remain open for consideration, and the trial court will now take up the matter.