Bengaluru, June 18 (Reporter) "Police should not expect the accused to give answers the way the police want. That is not the law," declared Justice Krishna S Dixit here on Tuesday as he granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, the mother of Prajwal Revanna, amid allegations of kidnapping. Bhavani had faced accusations of non-cooperation, but the bench noted her compliance, having answered all 85 questions posed by investigators. The court emphasised that the law does not mandate accused individuals to respond in a manner dictated by the police. However, stringent conditions were imposed on her bail; Bhavani is barred from entering the districts of Mysuru and Hassan, except for investigation purposes. Turning his attention to the role of the media, Justice Dixit underscored the potential impact of media narratives on public perception and judicial processes. He said, "When we...common men read newspapers, they believe it. Print media, social media should be cautious, they should not disturb family life." This ruling came after a period of suspense, as the court had reserved its order on June 14, maintaining interim protection for Bhavani until today's decision. The prosecution, led by Special Public Prosecutor Ravivarma Kumar, fervently sought to revoke the interim bail, citing Bhavani's alleged obstruction of the investigation. Kumar argued that her non-cooperation and refusal to surrender her mobile phone impeded the investigation, necessitating custodial interrogation. Kumar further contended that the anticipatory bail application was untenable, given the existing non-bailable warrant against her. "We are not able to make any headway because of her non-cooperation," he asserted, describing Bhavani as the "kingpin" behind the abduction, orchestrated to shield her son Prajwal from charges of sexual assault. Defending Bhavani, Senior Advocate CV Nagesh argued that the police had ample opportunity for custodial interrogation during the three days Bhavani was available. He challenged the necessity of an arrest warrant, suggesting that the police could have exercised their existing powers without court intervention. "Section 364-A is a cognizable offense; police have the power to arrest, why should they go to court seeking an arrest warrant?" Nagesh questioned, framing the issue as a procedural overreach by the police. After a heated exchange of arguments, Justice Dixit acknowledged the complexity of the case and reserved judgment, underscoring the need for deeper consideration. "Ordinarily in matters, the court would have dictated judgment in open court itself. However, that course is not undertaken, since matter requires deeper consideration in view of submissions made by both sides," he concluded. In a related development, the case involving HD Revanna, previously arrested and released on bail, looms as the prosecution appeals for bail cancellation, with a hearing scheduled for next week. According to the prosecution, the complainant's mother, who had worked for Revanna for six years, was abducted by Satish Babanna under Revanna's orders. This unfolding saga continues to grip the state, with new revelations and legal battles expected in the coming days...////...