NEW DELHI: In a major setback to Kannada actors Darshan Thoogudeepa, Pavithra Gowda and five others, the Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the Karnataka High Court's order of granting bail to them in the Renukaswamy murder case.
"The order (Karnataka High Court) is set aside, and the bail granted to the accused is set aside," said a two-judge Bench of the top court, headed by Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, on Thursday.
The court, which had earlier reserved the judgment on July 24, pronounced the order on Thursday after hearing an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging the Karnataka HC order granting bail to Darshan, Gowda and other accused persons in the Renukaswamy murder case.
While reading out the operative part of the verdict, Justice Pardiwala said, "Justice Mahadevan has pronounced a very erudite judgment. It is ineffable. It conveys a message that, however big the accused may be, he or she is not above the law."
He also stated that it contains a strong message that the justice delivery system at any level should ensure at any cost that the rule of law is maintained. "No man is above law or below it. Nor do we ask anyone's permission when we obey it. the need of the hour is to maintain rule of law at all times," Justice Pardiwala said, while pronouncing the order for the bench.
Strictly warning those people who provide special treatment to the accused in jail, the top court added, the day we come to know that the accused people are being provided 5-star treatment, the first step would be to place the jail superintendent on suspension along with all other officials.
The court asked Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the Karnataka government, that if it came to know of any wrongdoing in jails about being provided 5-star treatment, then we will call and summon you to answer.
In earlier hearings, the court termed as a "perverse exercise” of discretionary power used by the Karnataka HC in granting bail to Kannada actor, Darshan, Gowda and five others in the Renukaswamy murder case, as it had on July 24 reserved its decision on the appeal filed by the State government seeking cancellation of their bail.
“This is the perverse exercise of discretionary powers in grant of bail to accused,” remarked, the two-judge bench of the top court.
The top court, before reserving the verdict heard submissions of senior advocates Luthra and Siddharth Dave and others, representing the accused in the case.
Questioning the HC for granting bail in such a manner, the top court pointed out that "Has the high court applied its mind judicially?", as it noted that the trial was yet to start whereas all the accused persons were granted bail. "To be very honest with you (Dave), we are not convinced with the manner in which the high court has exercised its discretion," Justice Pardiwala opined.
Luthra had argued that the bail granted by the HC was unjustified, especially in a case involving serious charges under Section 302 (Murder) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).
He even went to the extent to contend that the HC effectively granted a "pre-trial acquittal" without properly examining key evidence, including statements of eyewitnesses and forensic findings.
On the other hand, Dave defending the HC's bail order, said that the investigation was flawed and that the credibility of the eyewitnesses was questionable due to delayed statements. "The charges are yet to be framed and the trial has not commenced," he had told the top court.
The bench clarified that it will not repeat the mistake of the high court. "We are not here to decide guilt or innocence, only to examine whether bail was rightly granted," Justice Pardiwala told Dave.
According to the prosecution, Darshan, a 47-year-old Kannada actor, was arrested on June 11, 2024 in connection with the murder of 33-year-old Renukaswamy, a native of Chitradurga. The victim’s body was discovered near a stormwater drain in Bengaluru on June 9, 2024.
After the investigation, the Bengaluru police filed a charge sheet and arrayed Pavithra as accused number 1 and Darshan as the accused number 2. Police claimed that Renukaswamy's act of sending offensive messages to Pavithra was the motive for the offence committed by Darshan and others.
Initially, a Sessions Court had rejected the bail of Darshan forcing him to knock on the doors of the State HC, which granted him relief, forcing the Karnataka government to approach the top court seeking cancellation of bail.