'Not Convinced' : Supreme Court Questions HC Order Granting Bail To Kannada Actor Darshan In Renukaswamy Murder Case

The Supreme Court today(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 in the Renukaswamy Murder Case. 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.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan 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 had moved the high court seeking bail after the sessions court had rejected it.

At the outset, Justice Pardiwala said that he is not convinced by the manner the High Court exercised its discretion in granting bail. Justice Pardiwala told Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for actor Darshan: "What do you have to say Mr Sibal? To be very honest with you, we are not convinced with the manner in which the high court has exercised discretion. Very honestly, we will say this. We will hear you because your clients are on bail, they have come for cancellation of bail and you must have seen the manner in which the high court had dictated the order."

Sibal responded that keeping aside the High Court's decision, the court can look into the Section 161 and 164 statements and two to three key witnesses, including police.

Keeping the matter for next Tuesday, Justice Pardiwala said: "You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere."

When Sibal asked which part of the High Court's order the bench finds problematic, Justice Pardiwala replied: "That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail."

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.

Luthra responded that not just antecedents but also post-bail conduct needs to be highlighted. He said: "He is sitting on the stage with one of our key witnesses in a public function. It is a little disturbing." Sibal responded that he is not a key witness, to which Luthra remarked that if he was not a key witness, then what was the definition of key witness.

Case Details: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SRI DARSHAN ETC. ETC.|SLP(Crl) No. 516-522/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order