Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, July 24, reserved its judgement on the Karnataka government’s plea challenging the bail granted to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa and six others in the Renukaswamy murder case. A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan raised serious concerns over what it described as a “perverse prima facie exercise of discretion” by the Karnataka High Court.
During the hearing, Justice Pardiwala questioned the manner in which the High Court dealt with the bail application, stating, "In a lighter vein, don't you think the High Court has basically dictated an order of acquittal of all seven? There are ways and ways of assigning reasons." He further added, "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?"
The bench was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the Karnataka government against the High Court's December 13, 2024 order, which granted regular bail to Darshan, Pavithra Gowda, and others. The plea was filed after actor Darshan, who was initially given interim bail on medical grounds after 131 days in judicial custody, secured regular bail from the High Court.
Justice Pardiwala went further to critique the High Court’s reasoning, particularly its remark that grounds of arrest were not assigned in a murder case. "That is the understanding of the learned judge? And that too from the High Court? We can understand a sessions judge committing such mistakes. A High Court judge committing such a mistake?" he remarked.
The bench questioned the state about evidence supporting the statements of two eyewitnesses. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Karnataka government, pointed to CCTV footage, CDR (Call Detail Record) logs, and a serologist’s report. He also noted that while the accused was in jail, two FIRs were registered against him, and after securing interim bail, he was found in the company of prosecution witnesses.
According to Live Law, Luthra emphasised that although the chargesheet listed 272 witnesses, only around 65 were considered material, and the prosecution intended to expedite the trial within six months.
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, representing Darshan, argued that the statements of the two eyewitnesses were contradictory and that one was recorded after a delay of 12 days. He stated that the High Court had applied its mind and that the findings were preliminary, not binding on the trial. "Anybody with a judicially trained mind would come to the same conclusion," Dave submitted.
Justice Pardiwala, however, stressed that the real issue was the "judicial application of mind" by the High Court, remarking: "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?"
Brief submissions were also made by counsel for co-accused Pavithra Gowda, who stated that she merely informed her domestic help about alleged obscene messages but had no connection with the other accused.
The murder of Renukaswamy, a 33-year-old pharmacist from Chitradurga, allegedly stems from obscene messages sent to actress Pavithra Gowda. He was reportedly abducted on June 8, 2024, tortured for three days in a Bengaluru shed, and his body dumped in a stormwater drain. The police filed a 3,991-page chargesheet naming 17 accused in the case.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on July 17, expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s decision to grant bail and had demanded the State to present a more robust argument.
The apex court has now reserved its judgment on the matter.
