Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted To Kannada Actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda In Renukaswamy Murder Case

The Supreme Court today(August 13) set aside the bail granted to Kannada actors Darshan, Pavitra Gowda and five other accused in the Renukaswamy Murder Case. 

The other accused persons are, namely Nagaraju R., Anu Kumar@Anu, Lakshman M, Jagadeesh@Jagga and Pradoosh S Rao@Pradoosh.

Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the High Court's order of December 2024 granting them bail, the bench comprising Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan ordered :

"We considered everything, the grant of bail as well as cancellation. It is evident that the order of High Court suffers from serious legal infirmities. The order fails to record any special or cogent reasons for granting bail under Sections 302, 120B and 34 IPC. Instead, it reflects a mechanical exercise of discretion formed by significant omission of legally relevant facts. Moreover, the high court undertook an extensive examination of witness statements at pre-trial stage, highlighting alleged contradictions and delays, issues that are inherently matters for the trial court to assess in cross-examination. The trial court is alone the appropriate forum for evaluating the credibility and liability of the witnesses.

Granting bail in such a serious case without adequately considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused role, the tangible interference with the trial are amongs perserve and unwarranted exercise discretion. The well-founded allegations of witness interpretation, coupled with compelling forensic and circumstantial evidence further reinforce the cancellation of bail. Consequently, the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and eminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risk derailing of the trial.

In light of these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that it calls for the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) CrPC. in a democracy governed by the rule of law, no individual is exempt from legal accountability by virtue of status or social capital. Article 14 guarantees equality before law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons regardless of their popularity or privilege, are equally subject to law.

In view of the foregoing, all these appeals are allowed. The order dated December 13, 2024, is set aside and the bail granted to the accused person is hereby cancelled. The authorities are directed to take the accused in custody forthwith. Given the gravity of offence, the trial shall be conducted expeditiously and the judgment rendered on merits in accordance with law. The observations made herein are strictly confined to issue of bail and shall not influence the trial on merits."

On July 24, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan had reserved judgment. Before parting, Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that the judgment is "landmark" it in the sense that it conveys a very strong message that no one is above the law.

He said: "My high opinion, my esteemed brother, Justice R Mahadevan, just pronounced a very erudite judgment. All that I can say in one sentence is that the judgment penned by my brother is ineffable. The judgment conveys a very strong message that whoever the accused may be, however big or small the accused may be, he/she is not above the law. This judgment contains a very strong message that justice delivery system at any level should ensure, at any cost, that the rule of law is maintained. No man is above the law, no one is below it. Nor do we ask permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right and not asked as a favour. The need of the hour is to maintain the law at all times. The day we come to know that accused persons are provided special or five-star treatment, the first step in the process will be to place the jail superintendent under suspension and including all officials involved in misconduct." 

Notably, in the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan, the Court has remarked that the High Court committed a "manifest perversity" in considering Darshan's stature as a mitigation factor. He Court notes that he enjoys celebrity status and a mass following which also reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody.

"In the present case, by treating A2's stature as a mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity in the exercise of its discretion, thereby warranting cancellation of bail. As demonstrated earlier, A2 is not a common undertrial. He enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout, and financial muscle. His conduct inside the jail – including recorded instances of VIP treatment, violations of jail rules, and registered FIRs for misuse of facilities – reflects his capacity to defy the system even while in custody. If a person can subvert the prison system, the risk of interference with evidence, threatening or influencing witnesses, and tampering with the course of justice is both real and imminent."

The Court also takes note of his post-bail conduct such as returning to social events, sharing a stage with prosecution witnesses and continued influence over police witnesses.

"Moreover, A2's immediate return to social events, sharing a stage with prosecution witnesses, and continued influence over police witnesses, despite being on bail, establish that his liberty is a threat to the integrity of the proceedings. Notably, celebrities serve as social role models – accountability is greater, not lesser. They, by virtue of their fame and public presence, wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values. Granting leniency to such persons despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder, sends wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system."

It concludes that cumulatively, his antecedents, influence, jail misconduct and seriousness of the charges against him make him unfit for bail.

On earlier occasion, the Court had questioned the State if it had any evidence to corroborate the statement of two eye-witnesses that Darshan was involved in the crime. At the same time, serious concerns were raised by the bench in regards to the exercise of discretion by the High Court in granting bail to Darshan.

On July 17, the Court had also orally said 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.

Justice Pardiwala orally remarked that the High Court has basically handed over a judgment of acquittal in the favour of the accused persons.

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.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment