'We Will Not Make The Same Mistake As High Court': SC On Darshan’s Bail In Renukaswamy Murder Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on a plea filed by the Karnataka government seeking to revoke the bail granted to actor Darshan by the Karnataka High Court in connection with the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.
A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan heard detailed arguments from both the state and defence before reserving its judgment. The court also directed legal representatives of some of the co-accused to file written submissions within a week.
SC criticises High Court's decision
During the proceedings, the top court delivered sharp criticism of the High Court’s decision to grant bail, questioning whether judicial discretion had been exercised in a responsible and reasoned manner.
“We are sorry to say, but does the High Court dictate the same kind of orders in all bail applications?” the bench was quoted as saying by India Today.
“What’s troubling us is the approach of the High Court. Look at the manner in which it has been done. Is that the understanding of a High Court judge? We could understand if it were a sessions judge. But a High Court judge committing such a mistake?” the bench was quoted as saying by India Today.
Top court slams High Court’s “perverse” use of discretion
Describing the order as a “perverse exercise of discretion,” the Supreme Court observed that it was reviewing whether the High Court had acted judiciously before granting bail in what is a serious case involving charges of murder and conspiracy.
“We will not make the same mistake the High Court did. We are a little serious because it is a case of murder and conspiracy," the bench was quoted as saying by India Today.
The bail order in question was passed by the High Court on December 13, 2024, in favour of Darshan and his co-accused, including actress Pavithra Gowda. The State has challenged that decision, citing flaws in the High Court’s assessment of the evidence.
One of the major concerns raised by the bench was how the High Court dealt with two crucial eyewitness accounts—security guards Kiran and Puneet.
“Why does the High Court say they are not reliable witnesses?” the judges asked. “Our last question: how has the High Court dealt with these two statements while exercising discretion?”
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the State, pointed to substantial material that corroborated the prosecution’s claims—call detail records, location data, DNA traces on clothing and inside the vehicle.
“All of this has been corroborated,” he told the court.
The judges also appeared disturbed by digital evidence gathered during the investigation.
“You recovered a mobile phone from accused number 10. Why would someone click pictures of the assault?” the bench questioned.
When informed that photographs of the victim pleading were shared with A2, the court expressed disbelief.
“Unbelievable, Mr Luthra. These people are posing for photographs? There is an assault going on and they’re posing? I’ve understood this cult now that worships actors,” the bench said.
Luthra clarified that all the accused were part of Darshan’s fan club.
“People do anything for him just to have access,” he explained.
The court concluded the hearing by stating that it will carefully review the High Court’s conduct in the matter before issuing an order.
“We will not pronounce a verdict of acquittal or conviction. But we will look into the conduct of the High Court and take a call.”
Renukaswamy murder case
Darshan, along with actress Pavithra Gowda and several others, stands accused in the alleged abduction and brutal killing of 33-year-old fan Renukaswamy, who had reportedly sent inappropriate messages to Pavithra. Police have alleged that Renukaswamy was held captive in a shed in Bengaluru for three days in June 2024 before succumbing to torture. His body was later discovered in a drain.
The Supreme Court had earlier issued notices to Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, and others on January 24, acting on the Karnataka government’s plea challenging the High Court’s bail order.
india