'HC Approach Troubling' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Karnataka Govt's Appeal Against Actor Darshan's Bail In Murder Case
The Court orally said that the High Court in effect passed an order of acquittal while granting bail.;
The Supreme Court today(July 24) reserved judgment in a plea by State of Karnataka seeking cancellation of bail granted to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy Murder Case.A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan prima facie raised two issues orally. First, whether the State has any evidence to corraborate with the statement of two eye-witnesses. Second, the manner in which...
The Supreme Court today(July 24) reserved judgment in a plea by State of Karnataka seeking cancellation of bail granted to actor Darshan in the Renukaswamy Murder Case.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan prima facie raised two issues orally. First, whether the State has any evidence to corraborate with the statement of two eye-witnesses. Second, the manner in which the high court exercised discretion in granting bail to seven accused persons including Darshan. Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that the High Court has basically handed over a judgment of acquittal in the favour of the accused persons.
This comes after the Court on July 17 orally remarked that it is not at all convinced in the manner the Karnataka High Court exercised its discretion in granting bail to actor Darshan. It also orally asked Darshan's lawyers, to give good reasons as to why the court should not interfere with the High Court's decision. The Court also asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State of Karnataka, if there are any antecedents of the Respondent, and if there are any, it may highlight them in the next hearing.
When the matter was taken up today, the Court asked Luthra to take the bench through the FIR and the statements including of two eye witnesses. Luthra relied upon the CCTV footage, CDR records and the report of serologist to substantiate the arguments of the prosecution. Luthra also responded to the question put up by the bench regarding the antecedents. He informed the bench that while in jail, two FIRs were registered against him, and just after he was out on interim bail, he was found in the presence of prosecution witnesses.
Time and again, the bench asked if there was anything to corroborate the statement of two eyewitnesses.
Whereas, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Darshan, submitted that the High Court found that the statements of eye witnesses are contradictory in nature. He also said that the statement of one eyewitness was recorded after 12 days. Dave argued that the genesis of the occurrence is doubtful, and the prosecution is trying to suppress the true origin of the occurrence. The two eyewitnesses should not be relied because of the delay in recording their statement. Moreover, there is no intrinsic evidence in the chargesheet to support the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses.
The bench orally stated that its more concerned in the manner in which the Karnataka High Court dealt with the bail application. Justice Pardiwala asked if the High Court follows the same approach in all bail applications, exercising discretion in a manner where it basically gives a judgment of acquittal.
Justice Pardiwala said: "In a lighter vein, don't you think the High Court has basically dictated an order acquittal of all seven? There are ways and ways of assigning reasons. The manner in which the High Court has dictated the order, very sorry to say, but does the High Court dictate same type of orders in all bail applications? What is troubling us is the approach of the High Court! Look at the manner in which bail application is [dealt] and in the last, and says he says grounds of arrest not assigned in 302 matter?!That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the High Court? We can understand a session judge committing such mistakes. A High Court judge committing such a mistake?"
Dave responded that the findings of the High Court are preliminary and it is not going to bind the trial. However, Justice Pardiwala responded: "It is a question of perverse prima facie exercise of discretion. We are trying to examine, while exercising discretion, has the High Court applied its mind judiciously? That's a matter of concern."
Dave submitted that as far as witnesses are concerned, the High Court applied its mind. He added that anybody with judicially trained mind would come to the same conclusion.
Further, Dave stated that there are 272 witnesses and no charges have been framed yet. Responding to this, Luthra submitted that there are 65 material witnesses and trial court will complete the trial within 6 months as it will proceed day to day. He added that amongst the list of 270 witnesses, it would eventually come down to 180 witnesses or so.
On this, Justice Pardiwala questioned why there should be a day-to-day trial in this case. He said: "Why should you do on day to day basic for this matter? There must be undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for 5-7 years waiting for their trial to commence."
Luthra clarified that he meant the trial will be expedited.
Brief arguments were also made by the lady counsel appearing for actress Pavithra Gowda. She submitted that he had informed her house help regarding the alleged obscene messages received, but she was not in contact with the other accused persons, including actor Darshan.
The Court was hearing a special leave petition filed by the State of Karnataka against the December 13, 2024, judgment of the High Court granting bail to the actor who is allegedly involved in the killing of his 33-year-old 'fan' over sending obscene messages to actress Pavithra Gowda. The notice on the SLP was issued on January 24.
Darshan had allegedly abducted the deceased from Chitradurga and had him tortured for three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The deceased later succumbed to the abuse, with his body thrown out in a drain as per the police report. Accused Darshan, Pavitra, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao and Nagaraju R moved the High Court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it.
Case Details: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SRI DARSHAN ETC. ETC.|SLP(Crl) No. 516-522/2025