Revanna had approached the court seeking access to all digital evidence collected by the State Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the cases against him. However, Justice M Nagaprasanna firmly rejected this request, stating that the law would not be bent in his favour.

“The images here, even of the victim, are obscene. Just because you are Prajwal Revanna, the law can’t be bent for you,” the judge remarked.

Revanna, accused in at least four separate cases of rape, sexual assault, and criminal intimidation, argued that the digital evidence he sought was not necessarily obscene.

However, the court dismissed this claim, emphasising the importance of protecting the privacy of other victims.

"You are entitled to evidence in the case related to Section 376 (alleged rape of a domestic worker), but if you are trying to extract material related to all the women you have had escapades with, that cannot be permitted. When they have not given any statements against you, why invade their privacy?" Justice Nagaprasanna said.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B N Jagadeesha argued that Revanna’s petition was a tactic to delay the trial. He informed the court that while copies of images and videos relevant to the four cases had already been provided to the defence, Revanna was now seeking access to over 15,000 images and 2,000 videos recovered from a Samsung phone allegedly belonging to his driver.

Many of these files contain details of other victims, and disclosing them would not only delay proceedings but also risk exposing their identities before the trial court, the prosecutor cautioned.

The High Court ruled that Revanna could inspect digital evidence and statements only with the present case, in line with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now part of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and the Supreme Court’s ruling in P Gopalakrishnan vs State of Kerala.

The court also permitted the prosecution to withhold evidence as per legal provisions. "It is his right to ask under Section 207, but whatever he is entitled to will be per the Gopalakrishnan judgment," the judge clarified.