A Bengaluru trial court has refused to discharge suspended Janata Dal (Secular) leader Prajwal Revanna in a rape case filed by his former domestic worker, who has accused him of repeatedly sexually assaulting her and recording the acts on video.

In an order passed on April 3, Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat framed charges against Revanna under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• Section 376(2)(k) – rape by a person in a position of control;

• Section 376(2)(n) – repeated rape of the same woman;

• Section 354A – outraging modesty;

• Section 354B – assault with intent to disrobe;

• Section 354C – voyeurism;

• Section 506 – criminal intimidation;

• Section 201 – destruction of evidence.

Revanna has also been charged under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2008, for allegedly violating the victim's privacy by circulating intimate visuals without consent.

The case stems from allegations that Revanna, while residing at a family-owned farmhouse, repeatedly raped a maid employed there, starting in 2021 during the COVID-19 lockdown. The woman claimed she remained silent initially due to threats and the existence of video recordings of the assaults.

She later quit her job and did not come forward until reports emerged about leaked visuals allegedly depicting sexual assaults. According to reports, more than 2,900 such videos involving multiple women were circulated online, triggering widespread outrage and prompting her to file a formal complaint.

A total of four criminal cases were subsequently registered against Revanna. Amid mounting public pressure, he fled to Germany following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections in Karnataka. He was arrested upon his return to India on May 31, 2024, and has been in judicial custody since.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT), set up to probe the allegations, filed a detailed chargesheet in August 2024. In response, Revanna filed an application seeking to be discharged from the case, arguing that there was insufficient evidence and that the accusations were intended to malign his image. He also pointed to the delay in filing the complaint as a ground to question its credibility.

However, the SIT submitted that it had compiled four volumes of material evidence, including forensic confirmation of the authenticity of the video footage allegedly involving Revanna.

Rejecting the discharge plea, the court held that there was prima facie material to frame charges and proceed with the trial. The judge noted that while the delay in reporting the crime and the non-recovery of the original recording device were valid concerns, they would be more appropriately addressed during the trial.

Importantly, the court observed that the complainant’s testimony was credible and sufficient to proceed further:

“It is to be presumed in ordinary prudence that no woman would come before the court to make a statement about her own chastity, which is considered much more important than being alive in normal Indian traditional society.”

Revanna’s legal team also challenged the legitimacy of the SIT filing the chargesheet, arguing that only a designated police station could do so under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court rejected this contention, holding that the SIT—comprising officers from the CID—was functioning under the umbrella of the Crime Investigation Department, which had been notified as a police station in January 2024.

The court has scheduled the next hearing in the case for April 9.

Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam and Advocate Arun G represented Prajwal Revanna in the matter.