E-Paper
SC questions HC for ‘panting for reasons to release’ Darshan
The Supreme Court questioned the Karnataka high court's bail decision for actor Darshan in a murder case, citing concerns over legal reasoning. Final hearing set for July 22.
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the Karnataka high court’s decision to grant bail to Kannada actor Darshan in a case involving the murder of his fan, Renukaswamy, observing that the court appeared to be “panting for reasons” to release the accused.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed strong reservations about the reasoning adopted by the high court, indicating that it seemed to be scouting for grounds to justify bail rather than applying settled legal principles.
“That part where the high court is panting for reasons to release him on bail... that somehow they have to find something to release these people on bail. It is about the manner in which the high court has decided the case,” the bench remarked during the hearing, addressing senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Darshan.
The bench fixed July 22 for the final hearing of the Karnataka government’s appeal against the bail granted to Darshan and his co-accused.
Appearing for the state, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra pointed out that the actor had a criminal history, including prior cases under the Arms Act and the Wildlife Protection Act. Luthra also submitted that Darshan was seen sharing a stage with one of the key prosecution witnesses, flagging this as an instance of his conduct warranting revocation of his bail.
The apex court , in January, issued notice on the Karnataka government’s plea against the December 13, 2024, order of the high court granting bail to Darshan and other accused. The state had argued that the high court had “whitewashed” the allegations and ignored critical material on record. It also warned that the order could set a precedent, emboldening the co-accused to seek bail on similar grounds.
To pre-empt such a scenario, the top court clarified: “To protect the interest of prosecution, if any co-accused seeks bail, the court concerned shall not place reliance on the order challenged before us. Any bail application filed shall be decided on its own merit.”
Darshan was arrested on June 11, 2024, for allegedly orchestrating the murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a fan who reportedly sent obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda, the actor’s friend
Renukaswamy’s body was discovered in a drain on June 9, a day after he was allegedly abducted and assaulted. According to the police, Darshan directed his fans to teach Renukaswamy a lesson for his offensive posts targeting Pavithra. He was kidnapped, tortured, and killed. The charge sheet filed in September 2024 named Pavithra Gowda as the prime accused and Darshan as the second accused, citing electronic evidence and social media records, including the obscene messages sent by the victim. The police claimed that Renukaswamy was harassing Gowda with lewd texts and images, apparently blaming her for Darshan’s marital discord.
The high court granted bail to Darshan and others, noting that the police had failed to furnish the grounds of arrest immediately after taking the accused into custody, as required by a 2023 Supreme Court judgment, which mandates prompt communication of arrest grounds to the accused. It also observed that the memo of grounds of arrest furnished to the accused appeared to be a “cyclostyled” copy -- identical for all accused, despite their arrests being on different dates. The prosecution’s claim that the grounds were served promptly was found unconvincing by the court, especially given the delay in securing witness statements.
Delay in witness statements was referenced as another ground by the high court in granting bail to the actor. It said that there was a significant gap between the date of arrest and the recording of witness statements. The high court also pointed out discrepancies in recording the statement of a prime eyewitness.
In granting bail, the high court noted that the accused did not have serious criminal antecedents, had spent six months in custody, and faced a lengthy trial with 262 witnesses and over 580 documents spread across 13 volumes of the charge sheet. Given the low likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial, the high court held that bail was justified.
