Supreme Court: While considering the appeal filed by State of Karnataka challenging the grant of bail to actor Darshan and other accused persons in Renukaswamy murder case; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala** and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., finding that Karnataka High Court order granting bail suffers from serious legal infirmities, cancelled the bail granted to the accused persons. The authorities concerned were directed to take the accused persons into custody and direction was given to conduct the trial expeditiously.
R. Mahadevan, J., said that 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 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrariness. It mandates that all persons — regardless of their popularity, power, or privilege — are equally subject to the law”. He stated that celebrities serve as social role models, with greater accountability. They, by virtue of their fame and public presence, wield substantial influence on public behaviour and social values. Granting leniency to celebrities despite grave charges of conspiracy and murder, sends wrong message to society and undermines public confidence in the justice system.
Agreeing with Justice Mahadevan’s opinion, and terming his judgment as “ineffable”, J.B. Pardiwala, J., cautioned that if the Court comes to know that that the accused persons are being provided with five-star treatment within the jail premises, then the Jail Superintendent shall be suspended along with all other officials involved in such misconduct.
Background:
Accused 1 (A1) and Accused 2 (actor Darshan A2) were allegedly in a relationship. The deceased, Renukaswamy, a resident of Chitradurga, allegedly sent obscene messages from his Instagram account to the account of A1. Aggrieved with this, A1, A2, A3 (who was working in the house of A1 and A2), and A10 (a friend of A2) allegedly conspired, through telephonic communication, to trace the deceased, kidnap him, and murder him.
A1 reportedly initiated contact with the deceased via Instagram. Eventually through continued communication, the deceased shared personal information including his location workplace and photograph.
After allegedly conspiring, the accused persons abducted the deceased and assaulted him and even used an electric shock torch (megger) on his chest, back, arms, and legs. After repeated assaults, the deceased eventually succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Thereafter, A2 allegedly instructed the others to dispose of the body discreetly, promising to bear the expenses.
Later, A10, A11, A12 and A14 returned to the shed and, following A2’s instructions, discussed fabricating a false surrender narrative. A2 is also alleged to have paid Rs 30 lakhs to A14, Rs 10 lakhs to A10, and Rs 5 lakhs to A11 to suppress evidence and avoid implicating himself and A1. A15 and A17 allegedly agreed to surrender in exchange of money.
In the early hours of 09-06-2024, A10, A11, A12, A13, and A14 with the help of A4, A6, A7, A8, A15 and A17, transported the deceased’s body and dumped it near a stormwater drain in front of an apartment in Bengaluru, with the intent to destroy evidence and mislead the investigation. Thereafter, A4, A15, A16 and A17 surrendered at Kamakshipalya Police Station. The postmortem report revealed that the deceased sustained 39 injuries, of which, 13 were bleeding injuries and 17 ribs were fractured.
Thereafter the accused persons filed bail applications before LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru which were dismissed. Therefore, they approached Karnataka High Court seeking bail. Meanwhile A2 also sought interim bail on medical grounds, which was granted on 15-10-2024 for six weeks based on a medical report submitted by the prison authorities.
Eventually, the High Court allowed the criminal petitions and enlarged the accused persons on bail, by the impugned order dated 13-12-2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the State thus preferred the present appeals.
Contentions:
Counsels for the State contended that High Court’s impugned order dated 13-12-2024 is ex- facie unsustainable as it is contrary to the material evidence on record and suffers from serious non-application of mind to the facts and law involved. Vis-a-vis granting bail to A2 on medical grounds, the counsel contended that the High Court did not constitute a medical board to assess the genuineness of the claim; furthermore, the medical opinion was vague and there was no indication of any urgency, in fact it was eventually revealed that A2 did not undergo any surgery. The Counsel further argued that the High Court erred in appreciating key legal provisions and crucial material evidence on record. Further, the High Court erred in holding that circumstantial evidence cannot be evaluated at the stage of considering bail, such a proposition being contrary to settled legal principles. The Counsel pointed out that continued liberty of accused persons especially A2 poses a serious threat to the fairness of the trial. A2 is a public figure with a substantial fan base and influence across the State. It was submitted that this was not a case of sudden provocation or a spontaneous act of violence. It was a premediated crime motivated by a perceived grievance — that the deceased had allegedly sent obscene messages to A1. A1 and A2 then conspired to eliminate the deceased, using a wide network of associates. The cumulative weight of the evidence, eyewitness testimony, forensic reports, electronic data, and confessions established a strong prima facie case against the accused persons. The grant of bail in a heinous offence such as murder, particularly when supported by overwhelming material, undermines the sanctity of judicial process and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice.
Per contra, counsel for the accused persons argued that prosecution’s evidence was fraught with material inconsistencies, procedural irregularities, and lacks probative value sufficient to sustain allegations.
Court’s Assessment and Findings:
Perusing the facts and contentions raised by the parties, the Court noted that statutory framework governing cancellation of bail under Sections 439(2), 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is well-settled and underscores the legislative intent that the power to grant bail is not absolute but is always subject to judicial reconsideration in light of emerging facts or legal infirmities in the original order.
The Court reiterated that considerations for grant of bail and for its cancellation are not identical. While the grant of bail involves a preventive evaluation of the likelihood of misuse of liberty, the cancellation of bail entails a review of the prior decision either on account of supervening circumstances or because the original order was legally flawed. It is equally well recognized that bail granted without due application of mind to relevant factors, such as the gravity of the offence, the strength of the evidence, or the conduct and antecedents of the accused, may be cancelled. Even in the absence of subsequent misconduct, a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or legally untenable is vulnerable to interference.
Examining the Bail Jurisprudence in detail, the Court pointed out that Annulment of bail orders refer to the appellate or revisional power to set aside a bail order that is perverse, unjustified, or passed in violation of settled legal principles. It is concerned with defects existing at the time the bail was granted, without reference to subsequent conduct. While cancellation of bail entails an assessment of whether the accused has abused the liberty so conferred.
The Court explained that while cancellation of bail is a serious matter involving deprivation of personal liberty, the law permits annulment of a bail order that is unjustified, legally untenable, or passed without due regard to material considerations. The distinction between annulment of bail orders due to perversity and cancellation for post-bail misconduct must be clearly understood and applied, ensuring a careful, calibrated, and constitutionally sound approach to the administration of criminal justice.
Coming onto the facts of the present case, the Court pointed out that the High Court, via the impugned order, enlarged the accused persons on bail, primarily relying on a set of factual and legal findings. However, on a closer examination of these findings, the Supreme Court found that the High Court’s assessment had serious infirmities that warranted interference.
The Court pointed out that delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail. The Court explained that constitutional and statutory framework mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. However, neither provision prescribes a specific form nor insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements are sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. The High Court, however, relied immensely on the alleged procedural lapse as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. In fact, arrest memos and remand records clearly reflected that the accused persons were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations.
It was reiterated that Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage. As a settled principle, the Courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. However, by the impugned order, the High Court proceeded to grant bail to the accused by delving into the merits of the case and recording findings that fall within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court. “The reading of the High Court’s order gives an unmistakable impression that it has pre-judged the outcome of the trial, thereby setting the stage for discharge or acquittal, which, according to this court, is contrary to law”.
The Court stated that appreciation of evidence at the bail stage is impermissible. It was pointed out that the High Court also proceeded to analyse and discount the credibility of certain prosecution witnesses and forensic material. Any opinion rendered at the bail stage risks prejudging the outcome of the trial and must be avoided. Thus, the High Court’s assessment of these aspects amount to a premature appreciation of the probative value of prosecution evidence.
The Court explained that filing of charge sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify grant of bail. The High Court failed to engage with the incriminating material collected during investigation, despite the seriousness of the offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegation of conspiracy. Mere filing of the charge-sheet, the existence of a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial, cannot, by themselves, constitute valid reasons to dilute the gravity of the offence or to disregard the case put forth by the prosecution.
The Court pointed out that post-bail good conduct of the accused, while relevant to the question of continuation of bail, cannot retrospectively validate an otherwise unsustainable order. While post-bail good conduct or the period of incarceration may be relevant considerations at the stage of continuing bail, they cannot cure the fundamental defects in an order granting bail which is perverse, legally untenable, or passed without due consideration of material factors such as the gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement, and the likelihood of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Vis-a-vis High Court granting of bail to A2, the Court noted that gravity of the offence justifies cancellation of bail, especially when the liberty granted to A2 is likely to subvert the integrity of the trial process. The Court further noted that A2 is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG surgery in the future. However, the medical report did not indicate: any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail. The Court further observed that contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 had made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This established that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise.
The Court pointed out that the impugned order of the High Court failed to properly evaluate the nature of allegations, involving premeditated murder and conspiracy, attracting Section 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC; the chain of circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, call records, and the forensic report showing deliberate attempt to destroy evidence; and the incriminating role of A2, who was in constant touch with A1 and other co-accused before and after the incident, and who facilitated the conspiracy and cover-up. The impugned order simply recorded that A2 had “no direct role” and there was “no prima facie case”, without discussing or analysing the incriminating material on record. This amounts to non-application of mind, rendering the order unsustainable in law. Furthermore, the High Court’s impugned order had contradictory findings which neutralized the basis for bail and indicate that the order was passed without a coherent or legally consistent rationale.
The Court noted that as per the Constitution which enshrines equality before law, a celebrity status does not elevate an accused above the law, nor entitle him to preferential treatment in matters like grant of bail. Influence, resources and social status cannot form a basis for granting bail where there is a genuine risk of prejudice to the investigation or trial. By treating A2’s stature as a mitigating factor, the High Court committed a manifest perversity in the exercise of its discretion. A2 is not a common undertrial, he enjoys celebrity status, mass following, political clout, and financial muscle. His conduct inside the jail reflected 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.
Taking note of the infirmities in the impugned bail order, the Court pointed out that the liberty granted under the impugned order poses a real and imminent threat to the fair administration of justice and risks derailing the trial process. Therefore, the present case was deemed fit for the exercise of Supreme Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 439(2) CrPC.
[State of Karnataka v. Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, decided on 14-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice R. Mahadevan
**Agreeing opinion by Justice J.B Pardiwala
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. P Prasanna Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. Sachin, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Manthan Dayanad, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. Mr. Ravindera Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Ishan Roy Chaudhary, Adv
For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar. S, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti, Adv. Mr. V Thomas, Adv. Ms. Shubhi Vijaywargiya, Adv. Mr. Uttam Panwar, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanisha Kaushal, Adv. Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Chandra Pratap, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Angadi, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar AOR Ms. Sanjana Saddy, AOR Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Rajsingh Rathore, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
