The Supreme Court on Thursday orally expressed serious reservations about the manner in which the Karnataka High Court granted bail to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa in the Renukaswamy murder case.
According to Live Law, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed that it was not at all convinced by the High Court’s exercise of discretion and asked Darshan’s lawyers to present compelling reasons for why the apex court should not intervene.
The matter pertains to a special leave petition filed by the Karnataka government against the High Court’s order dated December 13, 2024, which had granted bail to Darshan, who is accused of involvement in the torture and killing of 33-year-old Renukaswamy.
The victim, described as a fan of actor and Darshan’s associate Pavithra Gowda, had reportedly sent obscene messages to her. According to police, Darshan allegedly abducted Renukaswamy from Chitradurga and subjected him to brutal torture over three days in a shed in Bengaluru in June 2024. The man later died, and his body was found dumped in a drain. Darshan, along with Pavithra Gowda, Anu Kumar, Lakshman M, V Vinay, Jagadeesh, Pradoosh S Rao, and Nagaraju R, had approached the High Court after a sessions court rejected their bail pleas.
At the outset of the hearing, Justice Pardiwala addressed Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for 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,” he remarked.
Responding to the bench, Sibal argued that irrespective of the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court could examine the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with testimonies from two or three key witnesses, including those from the police.
Justice Pardiwala, while listing the matter for hearing next Tuesday, said, “You need to convince us that there is no good reason for this court to interfere.” When Sibal sought clarification on which part of the High Court’s judgment the bench found problematic, Justice Pardiwala pointed to a specific portion. “That part of the order, Mr Sibal, where the High Court was really panting how to release them on bail,” he said.
The bench also questioned Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Karnataka, on whether the accused had any criminal antecedents. The court asked that such details, if any, be presented at the next hearing. Luthra, in his submission, said the matter involved not just antecedents but also conduct after being granted bail. “He is sitting on the stage with one of our key witnesses in a public function. It is a little disturbing,” he said.
To this, Sibal responded that the person referred to was not a key witness. Luthra retorted, “If he was not a key witness, then what was the definition of key witness?” The case is scheduled to be heard again next week.
Source: India Today